If-  d 


ALUMNI  LIBRARY,  I 

-  % 

THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,  | 

PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


I) 


SUvlf\  c     4 


f0—\ 


/ 


fri^<^/  /AV.  I  kr  $     ^  ei  />'^ >^  S' 


'0 


LETTER 


t     ^   Offentlcmatn   of  2JaU(wove, 


IN   REFERENCE    TO    THE    CASE    OF 


THE     REV.     Mn.    DUIJOAN. 


BY    SAMUEL    MILLER,     D.  D. 

Professor  of  Ecclesiastical    "istory  and  Church  Government,  in  the  Theolfi- 
gical  Seminary,  at  Princeton,  JV.  /. 


The  wisdom  that  is  from  above  is  first  pure,  then  peaceable. — ^James  iii.  17. 


^Irfnccton   titpss  : 

JPRIJSTTED    BY    D.    A.    BOfiliEJVSTEIjY. 
1826 


0- 


^  »rttrr> 


&c. 


MY    DEAR    SIK, 

Your  communication  of  the  second  instant  reach- 
ed me  a  few  days  ago.  For  the  many  expressions 
of  respect  and  kindness  which  it  contains,  I  am  very 
much  your  debtor.  For  the  information  which  it 
gives  me,  I  return  you  many  thanks.  And  with  the 
opinions  which  it  intimates  contrary  to  my  own  con- 
victions of  truth  and  duty,  I  am  by  no  means  offend- 
ed ;  but  rather  feel  thankful  that  your  lot  and  mine 
are  cast  in  a  land  in  which  to  every  man  the  privi- 
lege is  secured,  "  et  sentue  quse  velit,  et  quae  sentiat 
dicere." 

It  has  been,  for  some  time  past,  my  fixed  pur- 
pose not  to  break  siknce  on  the  principal  subject  to 
which  you  refer.  And  to  adhere  to  this  purpose,  is 
still  my  prevailing  inclination.  Yet  to  queries  ofTer- 
ed  with  such  a  spirit,  and  for  such  an  object,  as  those 


which  appear  to  pervade  your  Letter,  I  cannot  re- 
fuse a  short  reply;  especially  as  you  seem  to  think, 
and  assure  me  that  others  have  thought,  that  the 
cause  of  truth  requires  me  to  say  something. 

I.  Your  first  inquiry  is,  "  Why  I  have  so  long 
delayed  to  take  any  publick  notice  of  the  Reverend 
Mr.  Duncan's  volume  on  '  Creedsv'  published  near- 
ly a  year  ago;  and  whether,  as  has  been  rumoured 
among  some  of  my  friends,  it  is  my  design  to  remain 
silent  in  reference  to  that  publication  r" 

In  answer  to  this  inquiry,  i  have  to  say,  that  I 
read  Mr.  D.'s  book,  in  a  short  time  after  its  appear- 
ance, with  all  that  attention,  which  the  deep  impor- 
tance of  the  subject,  and  my  own  peculiar  interest 
in  the  discussion,  w^ere  likely  to  excite.  Whether 
my  perusal  was  an  impartial  one,  it  becomes  not  me 
very  confidently  to  pronoimce.  But  the  issue  oi  it 
was  a  prompt  and  firm  determination,  unless  some 
unexpected  occurrence  should  lead  to  a  different 
view  of  the  subject,  never  to  take  the  least  publick 
notice  of  the  work. 

The  reasons  which  led  me  to  form  tliis  determi- 
nation were  the  following. 

In  the  first  jilare  ;  I  have  a  native  and  strong 
aversion  to  controversy  ;  an  aversion  which  increases 
with  my  age. 

In  the  next  plrice  ;  my  professional  avocations  are 
very  pressing  ;  my  heaiih  is  infirm  ;  and  my  mo- 


ments  of  leisure,  of  course,  are  very  few.  Tlw^.se  mo- 
ments I  am  anxious  to  hushaii.l  vvitli  the  utmost  vi- 
gilance, for  the  purpose  of  executing;,  if  Providence 
permit,  some  plans  which  are  with  me  peculiarly  fa- 
vourite objects,  and  from  which  I  feel  unwilling  to 
be  diverted  by  the  further  pursuit  of  this  contro- 
versy. 

Further;  I  had  resolved,  from  the  begih- 
mnz,  to  have  no  public  dispute  with  Mr.  Duncan. 
Every  man,  it  is  presumed,  who  is  at  liberty  to 
choose  his  antagonist,  will  take  care  to  make  a  choice 
which  will  suit  himself.  Now,  I  early  discovered, 
or  thought  1  discovered,  that  Mr.  D.  although  en- 
dowed with  many  highly  estimable  qualities,  which 
invite  acquaintance,  and  command  respect ;  and  ca- 
pable of  a  sort  of  rhetorical  writing  which  is  well 
calculated  to  make  an  impression  on  a  large  class  of 
readers ;  was  still  a  (!ontrovertist  by  no  means  to 
my  taste.  He  appears  to  me  so  singularly  prone  to 
miss  the  point  of  the  argument  w  hich  he  undertakes 
to  answer;  and,  at  the  same  time,  dogmatizes  with 
such  peculiar  positiveness ;  is  so  perfectly  sure  of 
his  own  infallibility;  and  seems  so  confidently  to 
expect  that  this  will  go  for  argument ;  that  I  felt  in- 
superable reluctance  to  entering  the  lists  with  such 
a  cham{)ion.  Accordingly,  when  I  prepared  and 
published  my  "  Lecture  on  Creeds,"  it  was  not  with- 
out design  that  I  excluded  from  it  all  reference,  or 
even  allusion  to  him.  My  purpose,  for  substance, 
remains  the  same.      Nothing,  that  I  can  foresee, 


shall  drive  me  from  my  resolution  to  involve  myself 
in  no  publick  controversy  with  that  Gentleman. 

Again ;  I  can  perceive  no  benefit  as  likely  to 
arise  from  a  continuance  of  the  discussion  on  Creeds. 
The  sober  and  thinking  part  of  the  community,  it 
appears  to  me,  neither  need  nor  uish  it ; — and,  with 
respect  to  others,  if  ever  so  much  were  written,  it 
"Would  never  be  seriously  read  by  them. 

But  the  final  and  conclusive  reason  why  I  have 
forborne  to  make  any  answer  to  Mr.  D's  book,  is, 
that  it  really  requires  no  answer.  He  is  so  far  from 
having  invalidated,  or  even  weakened,  any  of  the 
arguments  in  favour  of  "  Creeds,"  urged  in  my 
"Introductory  Lecture,"  that  he  has  hardly  so  much 
as  touched  them.  If  this  were  my  own  opinion, 
merely,  1  might,  with  good  reason,  suspect  it  of  in- 
correctness. For  every  man's  cause  is  apt  to  be 
"  right  in  his  own  eyes,"  until  "  his  neighbour  com- 
eth,  and  searcheth  him  out."  But  I  have  conver- 
se !  repeatedpy  with  some  of  the  most  acute  and  en- 
lightened men  in  our  country, and  solicited  their  candid 
judgment  as  to  the  real  force  of  Mr.  D's  book.  And 
they  have  all, with  a  single  exception, united  strong- 
ly in  the  opinion,  that  he  has  written  nothing  which 
impairs,  in  the  least  degree,  the  strength  of  my 
reasoning  ;  nothing  which  jjossesses  such  a  degree, 
even  of  plausibility,  as  to  demand  a  reply.  Why, 
then,  should  I  write  again,  even  if  I  were  ever  so 
fond   of  theological  warfare  ;  when  all  my  original 


positions  remain,  not  only  unshaken,  but  really,  un- 
assaileci  ?  Shall  I  array  new  arguments  ?  more  are 
not  necessary  until  the  old  ones  are  disposed  of. 
Shall  I  repeat  the  old  ones  ?  I  cannot  prevail  on 
myself  to  think  this  duly  respectful  either  to  Mr. 
D.  himself,  or  to  the  publick.  And,  at  any  rate,  it 
would  be,  if  I  am  not  totally  deceived  in  my  vievr 
of  the  subject,  as  purely  a  work  of  superrogation  as 
ever  was  undertaken.  For  such  undertakings  I  have 
neither  time  nor  inclination. 

I  take  for  granted,  indeed,  that  Mr.  D.  honest- 
ly views  what  he  has  done  in  a  very  different  light. 
He,  no  doubt,  believes  that  he  has  effectually  de- 
molished the  citadel  of  Creeds,  and  scarcely 
"  left  one  stone  upon  another."  This  is  evident 
from  the  bold  and  triumphant  style  in  which  he 
closes  many  of  his  trains  of  illustration  and  profess- 
ed reasoning.  But  I  must  be  allowed  to  question 
whether  reflecting  readers,  who  are  disposed  seri- 
ously to  examine  this  subject,  and  who  look  for  so- 
lid argument  from  those  who  discuss  it,  will  be  sa- 
tisfied with  such  logick  as  that  with  which  his  book 
abounds.  In  order  to  convince  you  that  I  am  nei- 
ther fastidious  nor  unreasonable,  in  saying,  that  I 
cannot  and  will  not  enter  the  lists  of  controversy 
with  such  a  writer,  let  me  beg  that  you  will  take 
another  glance  at  what  he  has  written — (a  very 
cursory  one  will  be  sufficient,)  and  see  whether  he 
have  not,  most  glaringly,  laid  himself  open  to  the 
following  charges. 


8 


1.  It  is  evident  tlot,   in  the  warm  appeals,  and 
imposing  cle(  ianintion,  which  fili  ihe  greater  part  of 
his  voluirse,   he  is  contkinding  without  an  ad- 
VKi^sAHY.       When    he   labours,    through   so    many 
pajies,  to  shew — That  "the  Bibk^   is  the   word  of 
God;'*' — that  as  such,   "it  is  obligatory  on  the  hu- 
iTian   conscience." — that    "  it  is   precisely   suited  to 
hi'man  Icings  as  sinful  and  fallen,  and  embraces   in 
its  jnovisions  all  that  is  j)eculiar  either  in  their  char- 
acter or   their   condition  ;" — that    "  the    Scriptures 
have  expressed  their  most  poirited  disap|)robation  of 
all  human  institutions  that  interfere  with  the  autho- 
rity ofGod  over  the  conscience  ;"  that  "  the  Bible  is 
the  paranK)unt  and  only  infalible  rule  of  faith  and 
practise ;" — and  that,   of  course,  to  attempt  to  put 
any  other  rule  in  its  place,  is  direct  rebellion  against 
the  Supreme  Head  of  the  Church:" — When  he  em- 
ploys, I   say,   so  iiuich    im|;assioned  declamation   to 
establish  these  positions,  a  cursory  reader  would  be 
apt  to  suppose  that  the  friends  of  Creeds  altogether 
deny,  or,  at  least,  do  not  fully  admit  them.     Yet  IVir. 
D.  knous,  and  every  sol)erminded  man  in  the  com- 
munity kncnys,  that  this  is  not  the  fact.     The  advo- 
cates of  Creeds  p(Mfectl)  agree  with  him  in  all  these 
positions.     There  are  no  proli  ssing  (  hristians  in  the 
world  who  coiucnd  more  earuestlv  than  they  do,  for 
the  divine  excellence  and  supreme  authority  of  the 
Scri}nur(  s  ;  who  deprecate  more  sincerely  and  un- 
ceasingly,   the  substiruiion  of  any    other  authorita- 
tive  ride  in   the   |  lace    of  .tbe  Scri|;tures;  or  who 
auuiii  more  reacii.yj    that  Creeds  aad  Confessions. 


as  well  as  the  opinions  of  those  who  form  them,  are 
to  be  tried  by  the  Scrijitures,  and  to  be  received  or 
rejected  according  to  their  agreement  or  non-agree- 
ment with  this  perfect  test.  All  these  principles  are 
set  forth,  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms 
of  our  church,  with  an  explicitness  and  a  solemnity 
which  I  should  certaiidy  suppose  must  preclude  the 
possibility  of  misapprehension.  Why,  \\wn  so  aiiich 
formality  of  effort  to  establish  them  ?  1  cannot,  and 
do  not,  admit  the  supposition,  that  a  gentleman  of 
Mr.  D's  honourable  feelings  wished  to  make  the 
publick  believe  that  the)  were  not  allowed  by 
those  with  whom  he  was  engaged  in  controversy. 
But  whatever  might  have  been  his  motive,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  in  all  he  has  said  on  these  jjoints,  he  has  not 
a  Presbyterian  adversary  in  existence. 

Nay  more  ;  not  only  are  these  principles  avowt^d 
by  our  Church,  in  the  most  explicit  m  uuier,  in  her 
Symbolical  Books;  but  she  has  uniformly  acted  in 
accordance  with  them.  In  ;di  her  pidiiick  acts,  she 
is  in  the  constatit  habit  of  referring  to  the  Scriptures, 
as  the  only  perfect  and  infallil)lt  test  of  truth.  In 
support  of  every  clause  in  her  Confession  ot  Faith, 
she  formally  adduces  cpiotations  from  the  Scripnucs  ; 
and  has  never,  to  ni}  know  K  dge,  in  any  one  instance, 
offered  to  set  up  any  other  test,  either  alK)ve  them, 
or  in  competition  with  them.  Of  this  a  more  strik- 
ing proof  is  not  necessary  than  an  extract  from  that 
very  Formula  by  which  oiu'  candidates  for  Li<ensure 
and  Ordination  are  called  upon  to  subscribe  the  Con- 


10 

fession   of  Faith.     The   only  two  questions  which 
hav  e  a  bearing  on  this  point,  are  in  these  words — 

*'  Do  you  believe  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  to  be  the  word  of  God,  the  onlt 

INFALLIBLE  RULE  OF  FAITH  AND    PKACTICE  ?" 

"  Do  you  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  of  this  Church,  as  containing  the 

SYSTEM  OF  DOCTKINE  TAUGHT  IN    THE    HOLY    SCRIP- 
TURES ?" 

Here  we  have  the  candidate,   in  one  sentence, 
declaring,  that  he  believes  the  bible  to  be  the  only 
infallible   rule  of  faith   and  practise;    and,  in    the 
next,  that  he  receives  and  adopts  a  certain  Summary 
or  Compend  of  Gospel  truth,  as  being,  and  because 
it  is,   the  systkm  of  doctrine  taught  in  the 
bible.       If  this    be  not  acknowledging  the   Holy 
Scriptures  as  the   only  authoritative  test   of  truth, 
and  in  the  most  formal  manner  referring  to  them  as 
such,  then  1  know  not  how  it  would  be  possible  in 
words  to  make  such  an  acknowledgment.     Perhaps 
you  will  be  ready  to  suppose,  my  dear  Sir,  that  there 
are  some  other  forms  and  occasions  of  subscribing: 
our  Confession  of  Faith,  less  respectful  to  the  Scrip- 
tures.    No  such  thing.     No  candidate  for  office  in 
our  Church,  since  the  year  1788,  ever  was,  or  can  be 
called  upon  to  subscribe  tiiat  Confession  in  any  other 
language  than  that  wiiich  I  have  just  copied. 


11 

Mr.  D.  is  also  fighting  without  an  adversary  in 
all  that  he  has  said,  at  so  much  K'ligth,  and  with  so 
much   laboured  rhetorick,  respecting  the  character  of 
many  of  the  Christian  Clergy,  within  the  first  three  or 
four  hundred  years  after  Christ.     That  many  of  them 
were  strongly  characterized  by  a  secular  s])irit;  that 
they  were  ambitious,  encroaching,  and  tyrannical, 
and  appeared  to  have   little  understanding  of   the 
rights  of  conscience,  and  quite  as  little  disposition 
to  respect  them  ;    is  amply  attested  by  the  best  his- 
torians, and  acknowledged,  so  far  as  I  know,  b\  all 
persons  w  ho  have  the  least  claim  to  liberal  informa- 
tion.    And,  truly,  we  need  neither  the  testimony  of 
the  former,  nor  the  acknowledgments  of  the  latter, 
to  convince  us  that  it  must  have  been  so,  if  human 
nature  were  the  same  in  those  days  that  it  is  now. 
If  there  were  a  Judas  even  among  the  twelve  Apos- 
tles ;  if,  amidst  the  inspiration  and  the  miracles  of 
the  Apostolick  age,  the  Church  was  disturbed  by  a 
DiotrepheSf  a  Demas,  an  Alexander,  and  a  Hymen- 
(BUS,  who  "  loved  to  have  the  pre-eminence ;"  if  there 
were  heresies  and  divisions  among  the  professed  fol- 
lowers of  Christ,  while  Calvary  was  yet  smoking 
with  his  blood,  and  while   his  precepts  and  his  ex- 
ample  were  yet  so  fresh  in  their  memory ;    w  hat 
might  not  have  been   expected  to  appear  in  three 
centuries  afterwards,  when  the  state  of  the  Church 
was,  in  almost  every  respect,  far  less  favourable  than 
it  had  been  before  ? 


12 

I  know  of  no  one,  then,  wbo  is  disposed  to  have  a 
word  of  dispiue  with  Mr.  D.  as  to  the  general  repre- 
sentation which  he  gives  of  the  character  of  many 
of  the  clergy,  and  of  the  character  and  effects  of 
some  of  their  ecclesiastical  Councils,  in  the  second, 
third  and  fourth  centuries.  If  such  a  state  of  thinj^s 
had  not  occurred  among  men  comparatively  illiter- 
ate ;  universally  subjected  to  despotick  rule  in  the 
state;  having  no  just  ideas  of  religious  liberty  ;  and 
deeply  infected  with  that  love  of  pre-eminence  and 
of  power  which  is  natural  to  men,  it  would  have 
been  something  bordering  on  the  province  of  mira- 
cle. But  what  is  all  this  to  the  reverend  Brother's 
purpose  ?  When  he  infers,  as  an  obvious  lesson  from 
his  melancholy  statement,  that  the  Fathers  were  fal- 
lible men;  that  neither  their  opinions  nor  their  do- 
ings are  to  be  considered  as  the  test  of  truth;  that 
all  they  wrote  and  did  is  to  be  brought  to  the  tribu- 
nal of  Scripture ;  and  that  even  the  business  of  en- 
forcing Creeds,  was  carried  by  them  to  a  length 
which  argued  abuse,  and  whieh  plainly  shewed  that 
they  were  unacquainted  with  the  rights  of  con- 
science;— who  is  disposed  to  contradict  him?  I 
certainly  know  of  no  Presbyterian  who  is  so  dis- 
posed. 

2.  Again  ;  Mr.  D.'s  conclusions  from  these  ac- 
knowledo;ed  premises,  are  among  the  most  singular, 

AND    F.VKN    LUDICROUS     EXAMPLES    OF    INCONSEQUEN- 
TIAL REASONING,  that  were  ever  exhibited. 


13 

I  am  well  aware  that  the  ardent  polemick  is  apt 
altogether  to  over-rate  the  potency  of  his-  own  argu- 
ments, and  is  among  the  last  to  discern  a  fl.iw  in  the 
reasoning  which  he  has  carefully  elaborated.  Yet 
there  are  certain  extreme  cases  in  which  one  would 
think  even  self-flattery  it^ielf  could  hardly  blind  a 
man  to  the  evident  and  total  want  of  connection 
between  his  premises  and  his  conclusions.  Mr. 
D.  how^ever,  is  so  completely  the  dupe  of  his  own 
zeal  (for  I  have  no  doubt  of  his  real  honesty  in 
this  thing,)  that  he  allows  himself  to  be  entirely 
satisfied  with  conclusions  which  in  any  other  man, 
he  would  see  to  be  as  perfectly  illusory  as  can  be 
conceived.  Would  you  think  it  possible  if  the 
fact  were  not  before  your  eyes,  for  his  truly  respect- 
able mind  to  tolerate,  much  less  to  vaunt,  such  logick 
as  the  following  ? — 

"  Many  of  the  clergy  began,  very  early,  to  man- 
ifest an  overbearing  and  grasping  spirit;  therefore, 
it  is  unlawful  for  the  Church,  at  present,  to  take 
any  measures  to  prevent  her  ministers  from  falling 
into  the  same  evil  courses,  and,  for  this  purpose,  to 
ascertain  their  soundness  in   the    faith,   and  guard 

the    purity    of  their    principles." "  The    Bible 

was  the  original  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  in 
proportion  as  its  decisions  were  either  neglected,  or 
postponed  to  the  inventions  of  men,  the  Church  de- 
generated ;  therefore,  all  attempts  to  decide  what  are 
the  real  doctrines  and  precepts  of  the  Bible,  to  ex- 
hibit them  in  a  compendious  and  lucid  manner,  and 


14 


to  promote  a  sacred  adherence  to  them,  are  mis- 
chievous and  to  be  avoided."— — "  Ecclesiastical 
Sjnods  andCouncils  became  very  early  the  hot-beds 
of  cabal,  and  the  instruments  of  clerical  ambition 
and  encroachment;  therefore,  rW  systematick  efforts 
to  extract  and  arrange  what  the  word  of  God  really 
teaches  concerninti:  christian  and  clerical  duty,  and 
as  far  as  possible  to  bind  the  clergy  to  its  pure  and 
simple   dictates,  are   unlawful,   and  tend  to  corrupt 

the  church." *'The  early  fathers  were  all  of  them 

fallible  men,  many  of  them  weak  men,  and  some 
of  them  grossly  inconsistent  with  themselves,  and 
with  one  another,  as  well  as  with  the  Scriptures; 
therefore,  it  is  utterly  wrong  to  endeavour  to  en- 
gage I  he  ministers  of  Christ  to  understand  and  love 
his  own  Statute  Book,  to  take  measures  for  know- 
ing that  they  interpret  that  Book  in  a  sound  and 
faithful  manner,  and   to  prevent  their  corrupting  his 

sacred    family   with    "another  Gospel." "The 

Bible  is  the  word  of  the  living  God,  and  all  that  it 
says  is  necessarily  obligatory  on  the  human  consci- 
ence for  that  reason  ;  therefore,  it  is  criminal  for 
the  church  to  employ  means  for  ascertaining  what 
the  Bible  really  teaches,  and  for  agreeing  to  adhere 
closely  to  what  it  does  teach." "  The  Bible  be- 
ing the  word  of  God,  mu^t  necessarily  be  suited 
to  our  nature  and  circumstances,  and  contain  all  the 
provisions  which  are  adapted  to  the  great  purpose 
for  which  it  was  given;  therefore,  we  insult  and 
abandon  it,  when  we  attempt  to  express,  in  our  own 
language,  an  exact  summary  of  its  contents,  for  the 


15 

purpose  of  excluding  those  false  constructions  of 
that  precious  Book  which  are  acknowledged,  on  all 
hands,  to  abound." "  The  Scriptures  have  ex- 
pressed their  most  pointed  disapprobation  of  all 
human  institutions  that  interfere  with  the  authority 
of  God  over  the  conscience  ;  therefore^  Confessions 
of  Faith  which  are  taken  simply  from  the  Bible, 
which  refer  to  the  Bible  as  their  sole  authority,  and 
which  are  formed  for  the  express  purpose  of  guard- 
ing against  the  inventions  of  men,  and  promoting 
a  rigid  conformity  with  the  Bible,  are  anti-scriptu- 
ral, and  lead  to  endless  evil." "Creeds  have  beeu 

often  perverted  and  abused,  and  have  not  been  effec- 
tual, in  all  cases,  to  guard  the  church  against  the 
heretical  opinions  which  they  were  intended  to  ex- 
clude;  therefore,  as  they  have  not  proved  a  perfect 
and  a  universal  remedy,  it  follows  that  they  are 
worthless,  nay  highly  injurious." 

I  have  marked  these  abridged  syllogisms  with 
inverted  commas,  not  because  they  are  all  in  the 
very  words  of  Mr.  D.  but  because  they  exhibit,  most 
faithfully,  the  amount  of  his  reasoning,  so  far  as  I 
understand  him.  He  puts  me  in  mind  of  the  deter- 
mined and  ardent  Papist,  whose  zeal  for  his  super- 
stitious creed  so  far  outstripped  his  logick,  that  he 
promised,  on  the  single  concession,  that  "  in  the'be- 
ginning,  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth,"  to 
found  a  demonstrative  argument,  that  the  doctrine  of 
Transubstantiation  was  taught  in  Scriptuie.  Verily, 
H  large  part  of  Mr.  D.'s  reasoning  is  not  a  whit  bet- 


16 

ter  tban  that  of  the  honest  Bomnnist.  If  there  he 
any  reM<iers  who  are  satisfied  with  such  reasoniiio;  5 
w!jo  think  it  eoo;ent,  or  even  ])lansible,  niueh  jjood 
mav  it  do  them!  I  should  liiink  it  a  waste  of  time  to 
ar^u^-  with  them,  and  an  insuh  to  the  commou  sense 
of  others  to  attempt  a  form.al  proof  that  they  are 
w  rons-  Can  you  blame  me  lor  declining  to  under- 
take such  a  task  ? 

3.  The  tJihd  ( har|o;e  to  which  Mr.  D  's  book  is 
most  manift'Stlj  open,  is,  that  his  principal  conclu- 
sions are  not  only  as  jjerfectlj  illogical  as  they  can 
possibly  be;   but,  so  far  as  they  go,  they   fkove  by 

FAU    TOO    MUCH    FOR    HIMSELF. 

He  contends,  for  example,  that,  if  th^  Scriptures 
are  the  word  of  God,  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith 
and  practise ;  if  they  are  perfectly  suited  to  our  na- 
ture and  circumstances,  and  contain  all  the  provisions 
■which  are  adapted  to  the  great  purpose  for  which  they 
were  given  ;  and  if  they  have  expressed  their  most 
pointed  disapurobation  of  all  human  institutions 
which  interfere  with  the  authority  of  God  over  the 
conscience; — thf-n  it  clearly  follows,  that  when  the 
Church  forms  a  Creed  or  Confession,  and  presents 
it  to  a  candidate  for  the  ministry  for  adoption,  she 
commits  sin  ;  for  she  attempts  to  add  somethinL^  to 
God's  own  rule  ;  she  practically  charsjes  the  Bible 
with  not  being  sufficient  to  answer  the  purpose  for 
which  it  was  given:  she  interferes  between  the  Di- 
vine authority  speaking  iu  the  word,  and  the  human 


17 

consc'iencp. — Now,  my  remark  i«!,  {hat  tbp<;e  ronclu- 
sioiis,  and  all  tiiat  resem    le  tiiem    in  Mr.  D.'s  l)ook, 
prove  by  f(ir  too  muck  for  himself ;  for,  if  Icsiitimate, 
thej  would  equally  pr#ve,   thar   all  fkkaching   is 
sinful;  that  every  com.mkntaixY  on  rnt:  biblk  ♦'x- 
tant,  is  a  monument  of  rebellion  ajiainst  God;    ia 
short,  that  every  attem|)t,  oti  the  part  of  ministers  or 
others,  in  whatever  form,  to  [Llustkatk,   kxplai.n, 
and  apply  the  truths  of  Scripture,  is  a  presumptuous 
interference  with  the  authority  of  God  over  the  con- 
science !     Are  we   prepared,  my  de  ir  Sir,   for   such 
conclusions?  Is  Mr.  D.  himself  prepare  1  for  them? 
It  is  manifest  fro  ii  his  book  that  he  is  not.      Yet  they 
as  clearly  and  infallibly  follow  from  his  premises,  as 
the  grand  conclusion,  which  he  draws  with  so  nmch^ 
confidence  and  tri(miph.     This  absurd  consequence 
was  expressly  stated  in  my  "  Introductory  Lecture  ;" 
but  no  method  of  obviating  it  has  yet  been  pointed 
out. 

That  Mr.  D.  is  really  reduced  to  this  absurdity, 
is  evident.  His  position  is,  that,  as  the  Bible  is  a 
complete  Rnd  perfect  rule,  it  needs  no  addition  by  hu- 
man wisdom  ;  and  as  it  is  a  plain  rule,  adapted  to 
our  character  and  circumstances,  and,  of  course, 
easily  understood,  it  cannot  stand  in  need  of  tiny-ex- 
planation, to  make  it  more  intelligible,  or  betteu 
adapted  to  edification.  But  is  not  PKLACHiNcan  at- 
tempt to  explain,  apply,  iind  enforce  the  Scriptures? 
Are  not  all  good  Commen  iaeiies  on  the  Bibl.?  at- 
fcmpts  to  do  the  same  thing  ?  Do  they  act  esseutial- 

B 


18 


]y  consist  in  endeavours  to  bring  forth,  arrange,  and 
exhibit  the  thue  sense  of  the  word  of  God,  and  to 
impress  it  on  the  judgments,  the  consciences,  and 
the  hearts  of  men  ?  And  the  more  perfectly  any 
preacher  or  commentator  does  this,  the  more  excel- 
lent is  his  work  considered.  Yet,  according  to  Mr. 
D.'s  reasoning,  every  attempt  of  this  kind  is  as  pre- 
sutnptuous  as  it  is  unnecessary.  No  ex])!ana  ion  of 
the  Bible  is  needed.  Every  effort  of  the  kind,  eith- 
er in  or  out  of  the  pulpit,  is  criminal.  Every  ar- 
rangement of  its  doctrines,  in  the  form  of  a  cate- 
chism, for  children  ;  of  a  larger  compend,  for  the 
purpose  of  popular  adult  instruction;  or  of  a  system 
of  divinity  for  theological  students,  is  a  virtual  de- 
nial of  the  excellence  and  sufficiency  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. Nay,  all  books,  whatever,  which  are  written 
for  the  purpose  of  elucidating  and  confirming  the 
doctrines  of  Scripture,  are  so  many  acts  of  daring 
rebellion  against  Him  who  has  given  us  his  word  to 
be  "a  light  to  our  feet,  and  a  lamp  to  our  path." 
And  yet,  with  this  reasoning  in  his  mouth,  Mr.  D. 
does  not  scruple,  every  sabbath,  to  go  into  the  pul- 
pit, and,  in  his  own  language,  to  expound  and  apply 
the  Bible ;  nor  does  he  forbear  to  publish  a  book, 
which  has  for  its  object  to  illustrate  and  establish,  at 
great  length,  and  with  much  human  rhetorick,  \\  hat 
he  deems  the  doctrine  of  k?ciipture  in  relation  to  the 
subject  of  which  he  treats.  Now,  all  this  proceed- 
ing, according  to  my  doctrine,  is  rational  and  right 
enough.  The  Bible,  though  a  plain  and  pen'ect 
Book,  yet,  because  of  our  blindness  and  depravity^ 


19 

is  not  understood  alike  by  all,  nor  at  all,  by  many. 
There  is,  therefore,  great  need  of  having  it  explain- 
ed, applied  and  enforced,  day  by  day  :  not  because 
there  is  any  faiilt  in  the  Revelation  which  God  has 
given ;  but  because  there  is  a  grievous  fault  in  us. 
On  my  plan,  therefore,  preaching,  and  commenta- 
ries, and  good  books  of  all  kinds  are  much  needed 
and  inestimably  useful.  But  how  Mr.  D.  can  re- 
concile the  lawfulness  of  any  of  these  things  with 
his  own  reasoning,  I  do  sincerely  profess  myself  ut- 
terly unable  to  conceive. 

Will  Mr.  D.  reply  to  this  difficulty  by  alleging 
that  preaching  is  an  ordinance  of  God  ;  and  that 
we  have  therefore,  a  plain  Divine  warrant  to  plead 
in  its  behalf?  True;  and  have  we  not  an  equally 
clear  and  unquestionable  Divine  warrant  for  taking 
effectual  care,  that  those  who  are  candidates  for 
the  important  offices  of  teachers,  guides  and  rulers 
in  the  church ;  who  are  to  dispense  "  the  word 
of  life,"  and  to  separate  between  "  the' precious  and 
the  vile :"  do  really  understand  and  embrace  the 
"truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,"  that  they  are  "  sound  in  the 
faith,"  that  they  will  not  "teach  for  doctrines  the 
commandments  of  men  ;"  and  lor  this  purpose  to 
receive  their  assent,  in  some  form  or  another,  to  all 
the  leading  doctrines  of  the  Bible  ?  I  ask,  is  not  this 
a  duty  as  plainly  enjoined  on  the  teachers  and 
governours  of  the  Church,  collectively  ;  as  proclaim- 
ing the  doctrines  and  duties  of  the  Gospel,  in  the 
sanctuary,  and  "  from  house  to  house,"  is  made  the 


20 

duty  of  every  individual  ambassador  of  Clirist  r 
Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  vye  have  just  as 
much  Divine  authority  for  the  one  as  for  tiie  other. 

Neither  is  it  a  sufficient  answer  to   say,  that  the 
cases  are  not  parallel  in  .another   respect : — that  in 
preachins:  '^n^  expounding  holy    Scrij)ture,  we  do 
not,  either  really  or  virtually,  set  up  another  rule  of 
faith;  but  that  we   only  explain  and  apply  the  Di- 
vine rule   itself:  whereas,  in    forming  a  Confession 
of  Faith,  and  in  asking  a  candidate  for  the  ministry 
to  adopt  it,  we  are  not  only  proposing  a  new  rule  of 
faith,  but  even  setting;  it  above  the  Scriptures.     Mr. 
D.  after  the  most  ample  explanation   and   assurance 
has  been   given  to  the  contrary,  still   insists  on  re- 
presenting my  doctrine   of  Creeds  in  this  light ;  as 
placing  them  above  the  Bible  ;  as  giving  them  autho- 
rity   to  bind  the   conscience  independently    of  the 
Bible ;  nay,    as  imposing   on  men  an   obligation   to 
believe  that  which  the  Bible  never  taught.    He   is 
incapable,  1  am  persuaded,  of  designedly  misrepre- 
senting any  thing.    But  the  truth  is,  he  has  suffered 
his  mind  to  be  wrought  up,  on  this  subject,  to  a  de- 
gree of  excitement  so  perfectly  febrile,  that  he  is  no 
longer    able  to    weigh   in    the  scales  of  impartial 
justice,  either  testimony  or   argument.     Spectres  of 
monstrous  form   are    constantly  flitting   before   his 
eyes ;  and,  though   most  other  people  see    them  to 
be  spectres  only,  he  cannot  be  })ersuaded  to  believe 
that  they  have  not  a  real  existence.     On  such  a  fe- 
verish judgment,  I   have   little  hope  of  making  an 


21 


impression  ;  but  to  you^  my  dear   Sir,  allow  me  to 
appeal,    and    to    a-k      wliether '   the    doctrine   of 
Creeds,    as  lield  by  me  has  been'  fairly  represent- 
ed    in  Mr.  D.'s    pages  ?     By    a    Creed,    or  Con- 
fession   of  Faith,   I    have  declared  myself  to  mean, 
a  Summary  of  the  leading  doctrines  of  the  Gos- 
pel,   faithfully    drawn    from  the   Bible  ; — referring 
to  the    Bible  as  its  oidy  source  ; — founding  its  au- 
thority solely  on   the   fact,  that   all  its  articles  are 
taui^ht  in  the   Bil)le  ;  and   being,  in   truth,  only  a 
fixed  and  accredited  form   for  ascertain in|2;  in  what 
sense  those  to   whom  it  is  presented  understand  the 
Bible.     That    this    is    the    simple,    unsophisticated 
meaning,  as  well  as   profession  of  our  Church,  is 
evident  from  a  great  variety  of  sources,  but   from 
none  more  clearly  than  the  Formula  of  subscription 
itself  before  recited.     In  receiving  this  formula,  the 
candidate,  as  you  have  seen,  first  declares,  that  the 
Bible  is  the  paramount  and   only  infallible  rule  of 
faith  ;  and  secondly,  that  he  believes  the  doctrines 
contained  in  a  certain  compend  to  be  those  which 
are  taught  in  the  Bible.     Is  this  setting  up  a  rule 
above  the   Bible,  or  different   from  the  Bible  ?    Is 
this  claiming  an   authority,  or  making  the  attempt, 
to   impose  on  the  conscience    what   the    Author  of 
the  Bible  never  required  to  be  believed  ?    It  isTe- 
ally  difficult  to  repel  such  a  charge  without  the  use  of 
terms  which  ought  not  to    be  applied  to  a  Brother 
so  truly  respectable  as  he  who  have  given    occasion 
for  this  remonstrance.     No  demonstration  was  ever 
more  clear,  than  that,  if  it  be  unlawful  to  extract 


from  the  Scriptures  a  summary  of  their  doctrines  in 
human  language  ; — it  is  just  as  unlawful  to  address 
a  congregation  from  the  pulpit  in  human  latjguage  ; 
or  to  expound  a  passage  of  the  word  of  (lod,  in  hu- 
man language,  to  an  ignorant  Pagan,  or  child,  or 
anxious  inquirer  after  the  way  of  salvation.  But 
will  Mr.  D.  admit  this  conclusion.  No  ;  he  has  too 
much  good  sense,  and  too  much  piety  not  to  shrink 
from  such  a  consequence.  It  only  amazes  me  that 
he  does  not  see  that  Creeds  and  .Confessions,  in  the 
only  form  in  which  I  would  be  their  advocate— faith- 
fully drawn  from  the  Bible,  and  constantly  ascribing 
to  the  Bible  all  their  binding  force,  cannot  be  as- 
sailed by  a  single  argument,  which  will  not  equally 
militate  against  every  possible  mode  of  expounding 
and  enforcing  Scripture.  The  Rev.  Brother  is  tndy 
unfortunate.  He  very  seldom  touches  the  real  ques- 
tion. When  he  does,  his  arguments  are  such  as, 
when  traced  to  their  unavoidable  consequences,  lead 
to  gross  absurdity  ;  are  as  much  opposed  to  himself 
as  to  any  body  else;  and  are  of  course  totally-  worth- 
less. 

4.  k  fourth  charge  to  which  you  will  perceive 
Mr.  D's  book  to  be  liable  is,  that  he  has  no  w  here  told 
us,  how  the  iMPourANX  ends  which  in  my  "Intro- 
ductory Lecture,"  I  represented  Creeds  as  calculat- 
ed to  attain,  or  rather  asi  indispensably  necessary  to 
attain,  can  be  attained  without  them.  This  is 
so  radical  a  question  in  the  whole  controversy,  that 


23 

urftil  some  tolerable  attempt  shall  be  made  to  ans- 
wer it,  I  can  never  consider  any  thing  that  mav  l)e 
said  as  worthy  of  being  listened  to,  and  far  less  as 
worthy  of  a  reply. 

Mr.  D.  in  his  book  does  not  give  us  the  least  in- 
telligible hint  how  the  Church  can  take  effectual 
measures  to  exclude  Pelagians,  Sfimi-Pelagians, 
Swedenborgians,  Universalists,  Arians,  and  Socini- 
ans  from  her  ministry,  without  the  use  of  Creeds 
and  Confessions  in  some  form.  There  are  those, 
indeed,  who  think  that  men  of  such  principles  ought, 
not  to  be  excluded  at  all  ;  nay,  that  the  door  to  the 
ministry  in  every  church  ought  to  be  left  wide 
open,  so  that  every  man  of  every  grade  of  opinion, 
from  pure  Calvinism  to  the  grossest  Socinianism, 
may  be  at  perfect  liberty  to  enter  when  he  pleases. 
This,  however,  I  am  sure,  is  not  Mr  D.'s  ji/dg- 
ment  ;  and  if  it  should  happen  to  be  the  sentimi  iit 
of  any  who  take  up  this  pamphlet,  I  iiiust,  for  the 
present  set  them  aside,  as  not  being,  properly,  par- 
ties to  the  existing  dispute.  I  shall  assume  it  as  a 
conceded  point,  that  it  is  not  only  highly  desirable, 
but  exceedingly  important,  that  the  Church  be  pre- 
served from  the  intrusion  of  heretical  men  into  her 
ministry.  Now,  I  ask,  how  is  she  effectually  to 
guard  against  the  intrusion  of  such  men,  if  she  is 
permitted  to  exact  no  other  |)rofession  from  candi- 
dates for  the  sacred  ofiice,  than  a  general  belief  in 
the  Bible?  How  is  she  to  ascertain,  as  her  Master 
has  expressly  commanded  lier  to  do,  tiiat  tftose  whom 


24 

• 
she  is  about  to  ovdriin  to  "  tlin  ministry  oi"  reroncili- 

afinn,"  Hie  '  iioiirislied  up  in  the  words  of  faith,  and 
of  ijood  doctrine,"  that  they  are  ''established  in  the 
truth  ;"  that  they  "  hold  fast  the  faithful  word  ;" 
that  they  be  "  apt  to  teaeh,"  and  qualified  "  rightly 
to  divi  !e  the  word  of  truth  ;"  that  they  be  able, 
*'  by  s(Miiid  doctrine,  both  to  exhort  and  to  convince 
the  2:^insavers  ?" — 1  say,  how  is  she  to  ascertain  that 
this  is  the  character  of  her  candidates  for  the  holy 
ministry,  when,  accordijig  to  the  Brother  whom  I  • 
am  constrained  to  oppose,  she  is  forbidden  to  employ 
any  other  test  than  that  which  the  most  corrupt  and 
Uiupialiried  will  bear,  Just  as  well  as  the  most  excel- 
lent ;  and  which  is,  of  course,  in  reference  to  the 
point  to  be  decided,  no  test  at  all  ? 

.Is  i(,  or  is  it  not  true,  my  dear  Sir,  that,  however 
plain  the  Bible  may  be  in  all  its  practical  and  most 
essential  features;  and  however  perfectly  adapted  to 
the  character  and  wants  t)f  m;m,  it  is  yet  differently 
construed  by  different  persons,  who  profess  equally 
to  receive  it  ?  Is  it,  or  is  it  not  true,  that  some 
men,  cailinji  themselves  ministers  of  Christ,  have 
deceived  and  corrupted  their  liearers  by  brinjjino^  in 
*'  another  Gospel  ?"  Is  it,  or  is  it  not  true,  that  such 
perverters  of  the  word  of  God,  and  destroyers  of  the 
sotHs  <)\'  nen,  have,  either  though  ambition,  avarice, 
or  worldly  aff'ction,  attempted  to  creep  into  the 
ministrv  in  the  purest  churches,  to  the  j^reat  offeijce 
and  distress  of  the  pious,  and  to  the  serious  injury 


of  the  flock  of  Christ  ?  Is  it  or  is  it  nor  true,  tliat 
the 'inspired  Apostle  directs^,  that  those  who  are 
known  to  be  hereiicks,  should  be  cast  out  of  the 
church?  And  if  those  who  are  already  m  the  Church, 
ou2;ht  to  be  cast  out  of  it,  for  holding  corrupt  opin- 
ions, notwithstanding  they  may  profess  to  believe 
the  Bible  ;  then,  is  it,  or  is  it  not  true,  thar  those 
who  -dve  yet  without^  oui^ht  to  he  prevented  from  en- 
tering^  when  they  cannot  and   will  not  "  witness  a 

good  profession,"  on  applying  for  adsnittance  ? 

I  repeat,  are  these  things  true,  or  are  they  not  ?  If 
they  be  really  true,  tlien  is  it  not  the  duty  of  the 
Church,  as  such,  in  all  cases,  before  receiving  men 
to  be  her  teachers,  and  ruliM's,  to  examine  faitiifully 
whether  they  understand  and  teach  the  Bible  aright  ? 
And  how  shall  this  matter  be  brought  to  the 
test?  Shall  it  be  done  by  placing  before  the  candidate, 
for  his* acceptance,  a  set  of  definite,  fixed  and  uni- 
form questions,  which  the  Church  has  agreed  upon, 
as  expressing  her  sense  of  the  doctrines  of  Scripture; 
or  by  calling  upon  him  to  declare  his  belief  in  his 
own  wordsi  One  of  these  methods  is  indispensable; 
for  in  no  other  way  can  it  be  ascertained  whether 
the  applicant  is  a  Calvinist  or  a  Socinian.  If  it  be 
said  that  the  second  method  onght  to  be  adopted  ; 
I  answer,  that,  if,  f)r  arguments  sake,  we  admit  this, 
still  it  is  equally  liable  to  all  Mr.  D's  objections  with 
the  first ;  for  it  is  a  creed,  expressed  in  human  lan- 
guage, and  in  addition  to  a  general  profession  of 
belief  in  the  Bible.  But  1  cannot  admit  that  it  is, 
in  any  respect  preferable.     It  lias  the  manifest  dis^ 


26 

advantage  of  being  vague,  fluctuating,  and  subject 
to  numberless  and  in^elinite  moditications,  according' 
to  the  caprice  of  those  who  ask,  and  of  him  who  an- 
swers. The Jirst  only  can  be  considered  as,  pn^per- 
\y  speaking;,  a  church-act,  an  ecclesiastical  fuililincnt 
of  duty.  And  it  is  equally  clear,  that  the  first  only 
can  be  expected  to  ojjerate  in  a  uniform  manner,  and 
to  produce  a  uniform  effect. 

Now,  it  is   not  a  little  remarkable,  that  Mr.  D. 
wdiile  he  dwells  so  largely,  and  with  apj)arently  stu- 
died, amplification,  on  several  other  points,  and  even 
on  those  in  regard  to  which  he  is  without  an  oppo- 
nent; should  scarcely  have  deigned  to  touch  this  point, 
which  every  one  perceives,   to    be  more   prominent 
and  more  vital  than  any  other  in  the  w  hole  range  of 
the   controversy.     Wliy  this   almost    entire   silence 
concerning  a  part  of  the  argument  which  first  of  all, 
and  above  all,  demanded  his  whole  strength?    Not, 
I   am'  persunded,   because   he   had   not  discernment 
enough  to  see  the  full   front  and  force  of  the  diffi- 
culty ;    but  because  he  had  nothing  tp  say.     With 
all  his  eloquent  declamation  on  other  points,  it  is  im- 
possible,  I  think,  that  he  should   have  satisfied  any 
reflecting  mnid,  in   relation  to  this  difficulty.     And 
until  he  shall  make  some  plausible,  or  at  least,  de- 
cent attempt  to  solve  it,  I  shall  feel  as  if  nothing  fur- 
ther could  be  demanded  from  me,  further  to  defend 
and  fortify  the  positions  in  my  "Lecture."  Here  his 
doctrine  labours  most  dee|)ly  and  fatally.     Until  he 
shall  relieve  it  from  this  difficulty,  he  will  have  ac- 


27 

complished  nothing.  It  is  a  millstone  about  the 
neck  of  liis  cniise,  which,  unless  detached,  must 
sink  it  irrecoverably. 

We  can  scarcely  conceive  of  a  more  striking  ex- 
emplification of  the  real  importance  of  this  point, 
than  that  which  is  furnished  by  tjie  proceedings  of 
the  Council  of  Nice,  in  the  fourth  century,  in  rf^Ia- 
tion  to  the  heresy  of  Arms*  After  the  Council 
had  gone  through  some  preliminary  inquiries,  and 
adjusted  some  preliminary  difficulties,  they  entered 
on  the  examination  of  the  new  opinions  which  had 
brought  them  together.  The  question  to  be  decided 
was,  whether  the  doctrines  of  Alius  were  heretical 
or  not  ?  Arius  himself,  and  his  tollowers,  insisted 
that  they  were  not;  that  they  did  not  differ  materially 
from  the  current  doctrines  of  the  church.  They 
professed  their  entire  belief  in  the  Bible,  and  a  per- 
fect readiness  to  subscribe  to  all  that  it  contained. 
This,  however,  did  not  satisfiy  the  members  of  the 
Council.  They  examined  the  writings  of  Arius, 
and  extracted  from  them  a  number  of  propositions ; 
from  which  it  appeared,  that  he  utterly  denied  the 
Divinity  of  Christ,  and  considered  Him  as  a  mere 
creature ;  and  affirmed    that    this  was  a    doctrine 


*  The  leading  particulars  respecting  the  Council  of  JV7ce,  detailed 
in  this  page,  were  mentioned  in  my  "  Introductory  Lecture."  They. 
are  here  in  substance,  repeated,  lest  some  of  the  readers  of  tiiis  let- 
ter should  not  have  the  "  Lecture"  at  hand. 


28 

agreeable  to  Scripture.     The   Counril,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  narrowing  the  ground  of  dispute,   quoted  a 
number  of  passages  of  Scripture  in  detail,  in  which 
the  titles,  the  attrfbutes.'and  the  works  of  Divinity 
are   ascribed    to    Christ ;     and    inquired   of  Arius 
whether,  besides  declaring  Ids   general  belief  iq,the 
Bible,  he  was  willing  to   declare    his  belief  of  i/iose 
passages  f     He*answered  that  he  ims  quite  willing; 
that  he  fully  believed  them  ;  but  that  he  put  his  own 
construction  upon  them  ?     What  was  to  be  done  in 
such  a  case  ?     To  have  separated  and  done  nothin^-, 
would  have  been,  most  unfaithfidly,  to  leave  a  mis- 
chievous  heretick   in   the    bosom  of  the  Church,  to 
corrupt  and  destroy  the   flock  of  Christ.     To  have 
contented  themselves  with  simply  repeating  the  very 
words   of  Scripture,   "  without  note  or  comment," 
would  have   been  allow'ing  the   Arians  to  explain 
every  thing   in   their  own  way,  and   to  tie  up  the 
hands  of  discipline.     It  soon  becahie  perfectly  appa- 
rent, therefore,  that  without  the  use  of  some  explan- 
atory terms,  it  was  impossible  to  proceed  a  step:  and 
as  the  pious  historian   Milner  justly   observes,  the 
Trinitarians  had  surely  as  good  a  right  to  comment 
on  the  declarations   of  Scripture,  according  to  their 
judgment,   as  the  Arians    had  according  to  theirs. 
The  orthodox,  then,  proceeded  to  do   what  every 
principle  of  practical  wisdom  dictated  ;  they  collect- 
ed together  those  passages  of  Scripture  which  assert 
the  Divinity  of  the   Saviour,  and  declared   that,  in 
their  judgment,  they  taught,. that  the  Son  of  God 
was  an  uncreated,  eternal,  and  Divine  Being,  the 


29 


same  in  substance  with  the  Father,  eqiial  in  power 
and  glory.  A  Creed,  or  declaration  of  belief,  that 
such  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Word  of  God,  was  drawn 
u}).  Arius  and  his  followers  were  asked  whether 
they  were  willing  to  adopt  that  Creed  as  their  own  ; 
and  upon  their  refusing  to  do  so,  they  were  pro- 
nounced hereticks,  and  cast  out  of  the  Church. 

Now  I  ask,  what  would  Mr.  D.  have  done,  with 
his  doctrine,  had  he  been  a  member  of  the  Council 
of  Nice?  Not  a  word  of  human  comm.ent  or  ex- 
planation could  have  been  admitted.  He  could 
only  have  repeated  the  very  words  of  Scripture. 
To  all  these  the  Arians  would  have  yielded  their 
prompt  and  full  assent;  and,  for  any  thing  that  I 
can  see,  must  have  baffli^d  and  triumphed  over  him, 
and  retained  their  places  in  the  Church.  Indeed  we 
cannot,  I  think,  be  at  a  loss  to  decide  what  would 
have  been  Mr.  D's  plan  of  procedure,  had  he  been 
a  member  of  that  Council,  from  a  variety  of  intima- 
tions which  his  volume  contains.  One  passage  in 
page  109,  and  another  in  page  128,  by  no  means 
obscurely  hint  to  us,  that  he  considers  the  Council 
as  having  been  agitated  by  a  dispute  "  about 
words;"  as  having  been  engaged,  very  "  unprofit-' 
ably,"  in  "  arraying  speculation  against  speculation." 
Had  he  been  there,  he  would,  no  doubt,  have  done 

JUST  NOTHING.     He  would  have  left  the  whole 

matter  to  take  care  of  itself,  and  the  Arians  to 
retain  their  standing  in  communion  with  the  Or- 
thodox.    A  precious  comment,  truly,  on   his  doc- 


•  30 

•» 

m 

trine  !     For  indeed,  adhering  to  that,  he  could  not 
possibly  have  done  otherwise. 

I  beg,  however,  my  dear  Sir,  that  it  may  be  dis- 
tinctly understood,  that  in  offering  these  remarks  on 
the  Council  of  Nice,  I  am  very  far  from  approving 
all  the  treatment  which  the  Arians  received  from 
the  Orthodox.  When  the  latter  pronounced  the  for- 
mer to  be  hereticks,  and^  excluded  them  from  the 
Church,  they  did  nothing,  in  my  opmion,  but  what 
the  word  of  God,  in  all  such  cases,  has  enjoined. 
But  when  the  Emperor  went  further,  and,  no  doubt, 
with  the  approbation  of  the  Orthodox,  banished  the 
Arians  to  lllyricum,  and  heaped  upon  them  many  se- 
cular penalties  ;  I  can  without  hesitation,  adopt  the 
lano-uao-e  of  the  pious  Patriarch,  on  another  occasion 
and  say — "  Cursed  be  their  anger,  for  it  was  fierce, 
and  their  wrath  for  it  was  cruel  !"  And  with  respect 
to  the  heat  and  violence  which  are  alledged  to  have 
been  indulged  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Council 
itself,  I  will  only  say,  that,  if  they  were  such  as  some 
writers  have  represented  them,  let  them,  be  con- 
demned without  mercy.  They  make  no  part  of  the 
Trinitarian  controversy.  There  was  no  orthodoxy  in 
them.  The  truth  of  God  stands  in  no  need  of  such 
unhallowed  weapons.  "  The  vvea|)ous  of  our  war- 
fare are  not  carnal  but  spiritual."  Let  it  always 
be  recollected,  however,  that  whatever  violation  of 
the  rights  of  private  judgment  occurred  on  that  oc- 
casion, is  to  be  considered  as  the  fault  of  the  age, 
rather  than  of  any  particular  party.     Just  ideas  of 


31 


religious  liberty,  as  was  before  observed,  were  then 
entertained  by  none.  The  moment  the  followers  of 
Arius\  who  had  been  so  severely  persecuted,  got 
into  power,  they  began  to  persecute  in  their  turn, 
"  If  Constant ine,^^  says  Mons.  Bayle,  banished  the 
ringleaders  of  Arianism,  and  threatened  those  with 
death  who  should  not  burn  all  the  writings  of  the 
arch  heretick,  it  is  equally  certain  that  Cojisiantiits, 
his  son,  and  Valens^  who  raised  Arianism  to  the 
throne,  treated  the  Orthodox  with  even  more  rio;our 
than  Constanlme  had  done  the  Arians." 

• 
Neither  has  Mr.  D.  told  us,  how  the  Church, 
without,  in  some  form,  adopting  and  publishing  ec- 
clesiastical Creeds,  can  fulfil  one  great  purpose,  can 
faithfully  discharge  one  great  duty,  for  which  she 
was  instituted,  viz.  to  be  a  depository  of  truth,  and 
tabear  testimtmy,  from  age  to  age,  in  favour  of  the 
truth,  against  its  numerous  enemies,  by  whom  she 
is  constantly  surrounded.  He  does  not  deny  that 
the  Church  is  required  to  maintain  the  truth,  to 
"  bear  witness  to  the  truth,"  to  "  contend  earnest- 
ly" for  the  truth, — in  the  midst  of  "a  crooked  and 
perverse  generation."  He  cannot  deny,  in  particu- 
lar, that  there  are  special  seasons,  in  which,  when 
err  )r  •'  co-nes  in  like  a  flood,"  she  is  bound  to  "lift 
up  a  standard  i«gainst  it,"  by  "  holding  forth  the 
word  of  life."  And  he  has  been  reminded  of  the 
impossibility  of  doing  this  effectually,  without  com- 
ing forth  with  a  discriminating  and  specifick  detail 
©f  those  important  doctrines,  which  are  most  point- 


32 


erllv  opnosed  and  declaring  her  belief"  in  thein. 
Yet  Mr.  D.  says  it  is  unlaAfni  for-  the  Church  to 
make'any  "  summaries"  of  Gospel  truth  :  nav,  if  I 
understand  h;m,  he  would  condemn  a  systemati<dv 
arrangement,  or  conipend  of  liil)!e  doctrines,  even 
in  exact  Bible  language ;  but  insists  that  in  all  at- 
temj)ts  to  communicate  the  truths  of  Scri|;ture  to 
men,  not  only  the  substance,  but  the  precise  words, 
form,  arraniiement  and  (Trder  in  which  they  are 
found  in  the  Bible,  must  be  scrupulously  retained, 
or  else  we  are  chargeable  vvith  an  attempt  to  be  wis- 
er than  God.  I  forbear  to  comment  on  such  positi- 
>  ons,  as  these.  They  certainly  lead  to  coiisecpien- 
ces,  as  before  stated,  which  I  should  think,  the. 
Brother  could  not  have  didy  considered.  But  one 
consecjuence  undoubtedly  is,  that  if  it  be  so,  the 
Church  can  never  publish  any  peculiar  or  dis- 
tino^uishing  testimony  in  favour  of  the  truth,  even 
when  most  boldly  attacked.  For,  according  to  tliis 
doctrine,  all  that  she  is  at  liberty  to  do,  is  to  pro- 
fess her  belief  in  the  Bible  ; — and  it  must  be  the  . 
wiioLF.  Bible;  for  no  selections  can  be  made; — 
no  particular  points,  which  have  been  specially  at- 
tacked, can  be  marked  as  the  objects  of  special  de-  • 
fence.  She  can  only  proclaim  and  reiterate  that 
she  believes  the  Bible,  and,  perhaps,  publish,  un- 
der her  own  name,  a  new  edition  of  it!  But  to 
what  does  this  amount?  Are  not  the  very  worst  he- 
reticks  in  the  community  in  the  constant  habit  of 
doing  the  same?  What,  then,  becoines  of  the 
Church's  testimony  to    the  truth,   as  a  distinctive 


53 

and  useful  service  rendered  to  the  cause  of  Christ 
in  the  world  ?  What  do  Christians,  in  this  case,  more 
than  others  ?  Verily,  it  appears  to  me  that  Mr.  D's 
plan  would  divest  the  Church  of  the  whole  efficien- 
cy of  her  character  as  a  ivitness  for  the  truth,  and 
reduce  her  to  the  station  of  a  tame  spectator  of  the 
most  furious  attack  of  its  enemies. 

•    The  pious  TValdenses,  and  other  witnesses  for  the 
truth,  during  the  dark  ages,  according  to  this  doc- 
trine,, did  wrong  in  forming  abstracts  of  Christiaa 
truth,  to  which  they  required  the  assent  of  those  who 
were  candidates  for  the  sacred  office  among  them  ; 
by  which    they  made    known   their    holy  faith    to 
others ;    and  by  mf'ans   of   which   they  "  shone   as 
lights  in  the  world."     They  did  what  was  not  "  re- 
quired at  their  hands."     They  ought  only  to  have 
professed   their  general  belief  in  the   Bible,  as  the 
corrupt  Papists  around  them  did.     But,  then,  where 
woidd  have  been  their  testimony  ?  How  should  we 
ever  have  known  wherein  they  differed,  or  that  they 
differed  at  all,  from  the  Papists  ?  My  dear  Sir,  my 
respect  for  Mr.  D.  prevents  me  from  giving  utter- 
ance to  my  impres^on  of  the  length  and  breadth  of 
the  absurdity  involved  in  this  wonderful  doctrine  ! 

5.  A.  still  more  remarkable  charge  to  which  Mr. 
D's.  book  is  liable,  is,  that  while  he  maintains,  with 
so  much  zeal  and  vehemence,  the  utter  unlawful- 
lyess  of  all  Creeds   and  Confessions,  he  distinctly 

A-LLOWS  THE  INDISPENSABLE  NECESSITY  OF    HAVIN* 

Q 


S4 


A  Confession  of  Faith,  and  confesses  that  he 

HAS,  and  employs  ONE  HIMSELF  ! 

In  page  99,  he  explicitly  grants,  if  1  understand 
him,  that  no  man  ought  to  be  admitted  to  the  com- 
munion of  the  Christian  Church,  who  does  not  be- 
lieve in  the  Divinity  and  atonement  of  the  Saviour  ; 
and  that  the  inspired  apostles  would  never  have 
baptized,  and,  of  course,  that  a  christian  minister* 
now,  ought  not  to  baptize  the  child  of  one  who  did 
not  receive  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  In  page  81, 
he  concedes,  that,  in  the  primitive  Church,  "  here- 
ticks  were  censured  and  avoided  by  common  con- 
sent, under  the  operation  of  that  inherent  power, 
which  religious  society  has,  like  all  other  societies,  to 
regulate  itself  according  to  its  own  constituent  prin- 
ciples.^"^ And  again,  in  pages  100  and  101,  he  con- 
cedes, that  there  must  be,  in  all  churches,  and  that 
by  Divine  authority,  a  reception  of  certain  funda- 
mental doctrines,  "as  a  term  of  communion  in  spir- 
itual things."  Now,  I  ask,  does  Mr.  D.  mean,that 
those  who  apply  for  the  privileges  of  church  com- 
munion shall  be  received,  of  course,  when  they  pro- 
fess in  ijeneral  to  believe  the  Bible ;  while  they  are 
known,  from  private  conversation,  to  be  Arians  or 
Socinians  in  sentiment  ?  Or  does  he  mean  that  the 
Church,  by  her  pastor  or  rulers,  shall  ascertain,  by 
the  use  of  human  language,  whether  the  applicants 
really  adopt  certain  fimdaniental  doctrines  which  the 
Church  fully  believes  to  be  taught  in  Scripture  ? 
The  latter  is  plainly  intimated.  Hereticks,  however 


35 

loud  their  general  profession  of  belief  in  the  Bible, 
are  to  be  "  censured  and  avoided  by  common  con- 
sent, under  the  operation  of  that  inherent  power, 
which  all  religions  society  has  to  regulate  itself  ac- 
cording to  its  own  constituent  principles."  In  other 
words,  religious  society  must  be  considered  as  hav- 
ing the  power  to  interrogate  those,  who  solicit  her 
to  receive  them,  whether  they  believe  certain  doc- 
trines which  she  considers  as  taught  in  Scripture, 
and  as  necessary  to  salvation  ?  If  so,  hoiv  7iiany  of 
the  doctrines  which  she  deems  highly  important, and 
which  she  finds  in  Scripture,  is  she  at  liberty  to  make 
"  a  term  of  communion  in  spiritual  things  ?"  And  who 
is  to  judge  for  the  church  in  this  matter  ?  Must  it  not 
necessarily  be  left  to  her  own  judgment  in  the  fear  of 
God  ?  Mr.  D.  tells  us,  that  he  most  readily  allows 
the  use  of  a  Creed;  but  then  it  must  be  di  Divine  not  a 
human  Creed.  L  ask,  Did  ever  any  cliurch,  calling 
itself  christian,  adopt  a  Creed,  every  article  of  which 
it  did  not  fully  believe  to  be  taught  in  the  word  of 
God,  and,  of  course,  to  rest  on  Divine  authority  ? 

The  truth  is,  no  church  ever  did,  or  ever  can,  get 
along,  a  single  day,  without  a  Creed,  of  more  or 
fewer  articles,  and  more  or  less  formally  exhibited. 
This  I  asserted  in  my  "  Introductory  Lecture,"-  and 
Mr.  D.  exemplifies  and  confirms  the  assertion.  The 
principle  is  the  same,  whether  the  articles  included  in 
the  Creed  be  few  or  numerous.  No  church,  indeed, 
is  at  liberty  to  insert  in  her  Creed,  a  single  Jirticle 
that  is  not  plainly  taught  in   Scripture.     Yet  the 


36 

HUtnber  of  articles  ou2;ht  to  depend  very  much  oa 
the  state  of  the  world  and  of  the  church,  and  on  the 
number  and  malignity  of  the  heresies  which  may  be 
prevalent  when  a  given  Creed  is  formed.  And  on 
these  points,  the  church  must  be  left,  a5  I  said,  on 
her  own  responsibility,  to  judge.  But  I  will  ven- 
ture to  say,  that,  however  few  and  simple  the  articles, 
they  must  afl  of  necessity,  be  expressed  and  enforc- 
ed in  human  language.  To  exemplify  my  meaning. 
Suppose  a  church  had  a  Creed  of  only  one  article, 
and  that  relating  to  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  and  con- 
sisting simply  of  a  literal  copy  of  the  most  clear  and 
decisive  text  in  the  whole  New  Testament  in  sup- 
port of  that  doctrine.  And  suppose  a  zealous  Uni- 
tarian were  to  apply  to  be  received  into  the  ministry 
in  that  church.  If  he  were  called  upon  to  assent  to 
that  article,  as  a  term  of  admission,  he  might,  on  his 
principles,  do  it  without  scruple.  For,  professing  to 
believe  the  ivhole  Bible,  he  could,  of  course,  adopt, 
as  a  part  of  his  Creed,  that  particular  text.  If  asked, 
however,  whether  he  believed  in  the  true  and  proper 
Divinity  of  Christ,  he  would  naturally  reply — "  No, 
certainly,  I  believe  no  such  thing.  The  text  in  ques- 
tion, as  I  understand  it,  does  not  teach  that  doctrine. 
Your  construction  is  a  mere  human  gioss.  I  am 
willing  to  subscribe  to  the  text  as  a  part  of  the  Bi- 
ble, and  in  what  I  consider  as  its  real  meaning  ;  but 
not  in  conformity  with  your  comment."  A  single 
case  of  this  kind, — and  such  a  case,  or  those  analo- 
gous to  it,  might  be  supposed  frequently  to  arise — 
completely  proves,  not  only   that  Creeds  may  be 


37 

drawn  up  in  human  language,  but  that  they  must  bcj 
if  we  would  wish  them  to  answer  the  purpose  of  ex- 
cluding those,  who,  while  they  profess  to  believe  the 
whole  Bible,  may  and  do,  notwithstanding,  reject 
all  its  most  fundamental  and  precious  doctrines. 

Mr.  D.  th'cn,  if  I  understand  him,  admits  the  gen- 
eral principle  of  Creeds  :  that  is,  though  he  will  not 
allow  a  church  to  reduce  to   writing,  in  her  own 
language,  a  series  of  doctrines,  which  she  considers 
as  drawn  from  the   Scriptures,  and  require  the  as- 
sent to  it  of  a  candidate  for  her  ministry ;  nor,  as  it 
seems,  will  he  allow  a  church  to  form  a  series  of 
extracts  from  the  Bible,  and  require  assent  to  them 
for  a  similar  purpose  ;  because  this  would  be  detach- 
ing the  passages  in  question  from  the  connection  in 
which  they  stand  in  the  Bible  : — yet  he  does  allow 
that  every  Church  may  have  a  Creed,  and  not  only 
so,  but  that,  keeping  her  own  principles  in  view,  she 
may  and  ought  to  exclude   from   her  communion 
those  whom  she  considers,  according  to  the  sense 
which  she  puts  on  Scripture,  to  be  heretical.     This 
is   enough  for  me.     It  is   virtually  giving  up  the 
whole  argument.     But  this  is  not  the  worst.     It  is 
placing  the  use  of  Creeds  on  the  most  dangerous 
possible  footing.     The  questions  by  which  it  is  to 
be  ascertained  whether  the  candidate  for  admission 
be  heretical  or  not,  are,  of  course,  to  be  stated  oral- 
ly.    By  whom  ?  No  doubt  by  the  minister  or  minis- 
ters who  may  be  called  to  officiate  in  a  j)articular 
case ;  and  just  in  that  shape,and  in  those  terms,  which 


38 

mny  suit  the  individual  or  individuals  who  propose 
them.  Now,  only  suppose  a  deficiency  of  intellect, 
of  prudence,  or  of  principle,  in  the  ministers  who 
act  in  such  a  case,  and  it  is  evident  that  this  nuncu- 
pative or  oral  Crimed  may  be  emj)loyed  either  as  an 
instrument  of  personal  hatred,  to  exclude  the  most 
worthy  ;  or  of  equally  base  favour,  to  admit  the 
most  unqualified  and  vile.  Commend  me  to  a 
church  whose  terms  of  admission  are  known,  publick 
and  open  ;  who  cannot  employ  her  invisible  and  in- 
tangible Creed,  with  inquisitorial  caprice  and  malig- 
nity on  the  one  hand,  or  with  worldly  suppleness 
and  accomodation  on  the  other  :  who  has  digested, 
recorded,  published  Formularies,  which  all  who 
choose  may  study  at  their  leisure,  and  which,  of 
course,  can  put  no  unexpected  trap  in  the  way  of  any 


6.  The  sixth  and  last  charge,  which  I  shall  men- 
tion, to  which  Mr.  D's  book  appears  to  me  to  be  lia- 
ble, is,  that  it  is  wholly  irreconcileable  with  the  con- 
stitution, not  merely  of  ouk  Church,  but  of  any 
Presbyterian  Church. 

I  am  of  the  opinion,  that  Mr.  D's  fabrick  cannot 
stand,  even  on  the  principles  of  sober  hidepeiidency. 
Nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  the  late  Rev.  Dr. 
Fuller,  of  England,  a  warm  friend  to  Independent 
church  goverment,  and  surrounded  by  what  might 
really  be  called  the  imposition  of  Creeds  on  the  con- 
sciences of  men — was  yet  wise  enough  to  distinguish 


39 

between  the  use  and  abuse  of  them.  He  was  a 
warm  advocate  of  Creeds  and  Confessions,  precise- 
ly on  the  principles  of  my  "  Lecture,"  and,  very  un- 
ceremoniously, pronounces  some  popular  objections 
brought  against  them,  in  that  view,  as  ''frivolous^ 
Many  other  distinguished  Independents  have  taken 
the  same  ground.  But  that  Mr.  D's  whole  scheme 
is  radically  and  essentially  inconsistent  with  every 
form  of  real  Presbyterianism  I  entertain  not  a  shad- 
ow of  doubt.  Whatever  else  he  may  be,  he  is  not  a 
Presbyterian  ;  and  to  call  himself,  or  his  Congrega- 
tion by  that  name,  is  a  burlesque  upon  every  princi- 
ple of  ecclesiastical  nomenclature. 

The  essential  principles  of  Presbyterian  chu'ch 
government— each  of  which  may  be  considered  as 
a  sine  qua  non  in  the  system,  as  such — are,  the  pa- 
rity OF  Ministers— conducting  the  discipline  in 
each  congregation  by  a  bench  of  Ruling  Elders 
— and  Courts  OF  Review  and  Controul.  Where 
any  one  of  these  features  in  the  plan  is  altogether 
wanting — there  may  be  a  church,  and  a  very  pious, 
exemplary,  excellent  church  ;  but  it  cannot,  properly 
speaking,  be  considered  as  a  Presbyterian  Church. 
A  number  of  particular  churches,  or  congregations, 
may  each  conduct  its  internal  government  by  Ruling 
Elders ;  but  still,  if  they  be  not  all  bound  together 
by  a  system  of  regulation  which  embraces  them 
all,  and  which,  by  a  series  of  ascending  judicatorieSj 
gives  to  a  larger  part  of  the  church,  the  power  of 
inspecting  and  regulating  the  proceedings  of  a  small- 


46 

er,  until  we  reach  the  highest  judicatory,  constitut- 
ed by  representative  from  all  the  churches,  and  which 
forms  the  common  bond  of  union,  advice,  and  co-op- 
eration for  the  whole  body  ;  they  are,  certainly,  not 
organized   upon   Presb}  lerian  princijjles.     It  is  not 
necessary,  indeed,  that  there  be  any  particular  num- 
ber, or  the  same  denominations  of  judicatories,  in  all 
cases,  in  order  to  form  a  Presbyterian  Church.     The 
Reformed    Presbyterian,    or    Cameronian    Church, 
had,  a  few  years  ago,  only  a  single  Presbytery  in 
the  United  States.     But  although  they  had  then,  no 
higher  judicatory,   they  were  strictly  Presbyterian  ; 
because  their  Presbytery  inspected  all  their  Congre- 
gations,  received  appeals,  when  necessary,  from  all 
their  church  sessions,   and  judicially  regulated  the 
affairs  of  their  whole  body.     They  had  no  need  of 
any  higher  judicatory,  because  their  ministers  were 
few,  and  could  all  meet  in  Presbytery.     When  this 
principle  of  joint  representation  of  all  the  churches 
in  their  proper  judicatories,  and  of  mutual  inspection, 
co-operation    and  controul,  is  abandoned,    genuine 
Presbyterianism  is  abandoned.     Just  as  in  the  civ- 
il government,  if  all  the  townships  in  Neiv-Jersey, 
or  in  Maryland,  had  a  separate  and  independent  con- 
stitution and  system   of  laws ;    each  its  own  little 
executive,  legislature  and  judiciary ;  and  each  pursu- 
ino'  its  own  views  of  interest,  without  any  reference 
to  the  rest;  and  without  any  common  government 
over  the   whole  ;  there  would  be  a  number  of  petty 
eommuities ;  but  there  would  no  longer  be,  in  the 
popular  sense  of  that  word,  in  our  country,  a  State. 


41 

Just  as  necessary  is  it,  in  order  to  form  a  PresbyteF- 
ian  Church,  that  there  be  a  regular,  acknowledged, 
and  uniform  judicial  constitution,  binding  all  the 
individual  churches  together  in  one  iiomogeneous 
body. 

Now,  it  is  not  only  evident,  that  Mr.  D's  whole 
book  is  hostile  to  this  well-compacted  and  scrii)tural 
plan  ;  and  that,  while  he  calls  himself  a  Presbyter- 
ian, he  is  really  in  principle  and  spirit  an  alien  from 
at  least  one  essential  feature  of  the  whole  system ; 
but  it-is  no  less  evident  that  his  "  no  cret^d"  doctrine, 
in  paiticular,suits  only  the  most  lax  and  wild  Inde- 
pendency that  can  be  conceived  ;  and  cannot,  indeed, 
be  easily  reconciled  with  anv  other.  It  avowedly 
leaves  every  individual  church  to  decide  an<l  act  for 
itself,  according  to  the  ever-varying  directions  of  hu- 
man caprice.  No  one  doubts  that  every  church  has 
a  right  thus  to  pursue  its  own  pleasure.  What  is 
denied  is,  that  when  it  takes  this  course  it  can  be 
considered  as  acting  upon  Presbyterian  principles. 
If  a  society  were  to  adoj)t  and  avow  the  practice  of 
Lay-ordination,  proscribe  all  Liturgies,  and  reject 
all  Articles  of  faith ;  and  yet  insist  upon  calling  it- 
self a  "  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,"  and  claim  to 
be  associated  with  the  body  which  bears  this  name 
in  the  United  States,  would  not  every  rational  man 
consider  the  claim  as  an  absurdity  ?  Precisely  simil- 
ar, as  it  appears  to  me,  is  the  case  before  us.  Tiio 
very  attempt  to  unite  upon  the  Presbyterian  plan, 
without  an  explicit,  stipulated,  and  recorded  agree- 


42 

ment  as  to  doctrine  ;  in  other  words,  without  a  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  common  to  all  the  churciies  form- 
ing the  body,  would  be  about  equally  preposterous 
and  impracticable.  The  very  essence  of  such  a  sys- 
tem is  having  a  set  of  common  rules,  both  of  faith 
and  order,  explicitly  acceded  to  by  all,  and  by  uni- 
versal conformity  to  which,  all  the  particular  church 
es  live  and  act  together  in  harmony  and  love,  form- 
ing "  one  body  in  Christ,  and  every  one  members 
one  of  another."  Were  there,  indeed,  but  one  con- 
gregation in  the  United  States,  of  the  Presbyterian 
name,  and  that  under  the  pastoral  care  of  arwise, 
prudent,  pious  and  orthodox  minister,  and  also  of 
an  Eldership  of  similar  character,  it  might  possibly 
proceed  in  tolerable  harmony  and  purity  for  a  con- 
siderable time,  without  a  written  Creed  : — but  how 

the  SEVENTEEN  OR  EIGHIEEN  HUNDRED  CONGREGA- 
TIONS belonging  to  the  Presby':erian  Church  in  this 
country,  supposing  them  to  be  now  on  the  whole, 
w^ell  united  in  doctrine,views  and  feelings,  could  ex- 
pect to  continue  so  for  a  single  year  ;  much  less  for 
ten  years  together  ;  how  the  ministers  or  members 
in  one  part  of  the  church,  could  expect,  in  travelling 
into  another,  to  find  brethren  one  with  themselves 
in  sentiment,  habit,  and  affection,  as  well  as  in 
name,  if  there  were  no  other  pledge  of  ecclesiastic- 
al harmony,  than  the  ever-varying  caprices  of  indi- 
vidual feeling,  and  oral  communication  ;— is  a  prob- 
lem which  1  should  most  deeply  regret  to  see  sub- 
jected to  the  awful  solution  of  actual  experiment ! 


48 

You  will  not  suppose,  for  a  moment,  that  I  impute 
it  as  a  crime  to  Mr.  I),  that  lie  is  not,  and  with  his 
present  sentiments,  cannot,  be  a  Presl))terian.  He 
has  a  perfect  rijilit  to  be  an  Independent,  or  what  he 
pleases.  God  forbid  that  the  rights  of  conscience^ 
on  this,  or  any  other  point,  should  ever  be  abridged 
or  questioned !  All  I  assert  is,  tiiat  his  system  is  to- 
tally subversive  of  Presbyterianism  ;  and  that,  con- 
sidering his  scheme  in  all  its  ])arts,  nothing  has  sur- 
prized me  more  than  his  having  the  least  disposition 
to  call  himself  by  our  name,  or  to  remain  in  our 
connection. 

Such,  my  dear  Sir,  are  my  principal  reasons  for 
declining  to  take  any  publick  notice  of  Mr.  D's 
book,  and  especially  for  determining  to  involve 
mvself  in  no  controversv  with  him.  Not  because 
I  think  the  subject  of  less  importance  than  1  former- 
ly did ;  for  the  longer  I  reflect  upon  it,  the  more 
momentous  does  it  appear,  to  the  best  interests  of 
the  Church.  Not  because  I  am  dispos(>d  to  shrink 
from  the  task  of  defending  the  truth,  when  1  see  it 
really  labouring  ;  for,  such  as  I  am,  I  have  humbly 
endeavoured  to  consecrate  myself  to  a  course  of 
labour  in  this  vocation,  to  my  latest  breath.  And 
least  of  all,  because  I  consider  any  one  of  my  argu- 
ments in  favour  of  Creeds  as  having  been  refuted  or 
even  seriously  assailed  by  that  Brother.  But  be- 
cause I  am  perfectly  persuaded  that  undertaking  to 
reply  to  him  would  be  a  superfluous  task.  There 
is  absolutely  no  need  of  it.    If  through  a  great  part  of 


44 

his  book,  he  is  labouring  to  prove  that,  which  no 
body  with  whom  he  has  any  thing  to  do,  denies ; 
if,  with  singular  infelicity,  he  scarcely  ever  per- 
ceives or  touches  the  real  point  of  the  argument, 
and  when  he  does  for  a  moment  touch  it,  draws 
conclusions  which  reduce  himself  to  absurdity ;  if 
he  has  never  yet  condescended  to  tell  us,  how  the 
all-important  objects  to  the  attainment  of  which 
Creeds  have  been  hitherto  considered  as  indispen- 
sable, may  be  attained  without  them  ;  if,  after  all, 
he  admits,  that  every  church  that  would  exclude  he- 
reticks  from  her  bosom,  must  have  and  use  a  Creed  ; 
and  if,  while  he  calls  himself,  and  wishes  to  be  con- 
sidered, a  Presbyterian,  he  is  opposing,  and  ex- 
erting himself  to  the  utmost  to  subvert,  some  of  the 
most  essential  principles  of  that  form  of  church  gov- 
ernment.  If  these  things  be  so,  it  cannot  be  sup- 
posed that,  in  this  community,  such  writing  needs 
to  be  refuted. 

I  will  only  add,  before  proceeding  to  another  par- 
ticular, that  if  1  could  have  persuaded  myself  that 
the  uncommonly  clear  and  powerful  Review  of  Mr. 
D's  work,  by  the  venerable  Editor  of  the  "  Christ- 
ian Advocate,"  had  been  generally  read  by  those 
who  take  an  interest  in  this  discussion,  I  should  cer- 
tainly have  thought  the  foregoing  detail  altogether 
unnecessary.  But,  as  you  intimate  that  this,  for 
various  reasons,  is  not  the  fact,  I  have  not  scrupled  to 
bring  into  view  a  number  of  points  well  treated  in 
that  able  performance,  for  the  sake  of  presenting  a 
general  survey  of  the  subject. 


45 

II.  You  inform  me,  "  that  Mr.  D.  in  the  opin- 
ion of  many  people,  bj  his  lar^^e  quotations  from 
my  "  Letters  on  the  Christian  Ministry,"  published 
a  number  of  years  a^o,  has  fixed  on  me  the  charo-e 
of  inconsistency  ;  that  he  has  arrayed  me  against 
myself,  in  a  manner  not  very  much  calculated  to 
gratify  my  feelings." 

I  can  only  reply,  that  I  perceive  no  such  inconsis- 
tency as  Mr.  D.  seems  to  triumph  in  exhibiting. 
On  the  contrary,  I  cordially  thank  him  for  givino- 
new  and  extended  circulation  to  sentiments,  which 
are  as  fully  mine  at  this  moment,  and  which  1  deem 
quite  as  important,  as  on  the  day  when  they  were 
first  penned.  If  I  were  now  about  to  write  and 
publish  on  the  same  subject,  I  should  not  wish  to 
modify  a  thought,  or  to  alter  an  expression,  unless 
it  were  to  express  precisely  the  same  sentiments 
with  still  more  force  and  point.  And  1  am  amazed 
that  Mr.  D.  should  think  that  he  finds  any  thing  in 
those  pages  which  does  not  fully  quadrate  with  the 
contents  of  my  "  Introductory  l^ecture."  What  is 
the  amount  of  that  which  I  maintain  in  the  extracts 
referred  to  ?  Why, — that  the  Bible  is  the  only  infal- 
lible rule  of  faith  and  practise; that  the  authori- 
ty of  Christ  can  be  claimed  for  notliing  which  is 

not  found,  in  some  form,   in  his  own  word ; that 

the  apostolick  church,  or  the  church  as  it  existed  in 
the  first  century,  and  for  a  short  time  afterwards,  ex- 
hibited a  degree  of  simplicity  and  purity,  which  has 
perhaps,  never  since   been  equalled ; — that  corrup- 


46 

tion  both  in  doctrine  and  in  practise,  before  the 
close  of  the  second  century,  began  to  flow  in  on  the 
Church,  and,  before  the  commencement  of  the 
fourth  had  made  alarming  progress  ; — that  the  Sy- 
nods and  Councils  of  the  first  two  or  three  hundred 
years,  were  empU)yed  by  ambitious  pastors  as 
means  of  extending,  their  power,  and  of  course,  en- 
croaching on  the  rights  of  others  ; that  they  very 

soon  fell  into  the  practise  of  postponing  the  decisions 
of  Scripture  to  their  own  ; — that,  consequently  the 
early  christian  writers,  called  the  "  Fathers,"  can 
never  be  safely  referred  to  as  a  rule  either  of  faith  or 

practise  ; that,  therefore,  all  the  writings  of  the 

Fathers  are  to  be  brought  to  the  test  of  the  Bible, 

and  to  be  judged  by  that  test  alone  ; that  their 

Creeds  and  Confession  are  entitled  to  no  respect 
whatever  from  us,  ex(;epting  in  so  far  as  they  agree 
with  God's  own  word  ; that,  as  a  necessary  in- 
ference from  all  these  positions,  historick  fact,  is 
not  divine  institution; — and  that  whoever  attempts 
to  establish  the  Divine  authority  of  any  thing  be- 
cause it  was  early  introduced,  and  extensively  re- 
ceived, within  the  first  three  or  four  hundred  years, 
abuses  our  confidence,  and  deserts  the  only  infalli- 
ble rule. 

Such  are  the  sentiments  which  Mr.  D.  finds  me 
avowing,  nearly  twenty  >ears  ago,  and  with  these 
sentiments  he  profesess  to  think  my  present  doctrine 
concerning  Creeds  ulterly  irreconcilable.  But  why 
so  ?    What  is  there  in  all  this,  that  militates  in  the 


47 

least  degree  with  either  the  letter  or  spirit  of  my 
"  Introductory  Lecture  ?"  Have  I  not  defined  a  cor- 
rect Creed  (and  surely  I  plead  for  no  otlier  than  a 
correct  one)  to  he  a  "summary  of  Scriptural  truths ;'''' 
to  be  worthy  of  respect  only  so  far  as  it  is  a  faithful 
extract  from  Scripture  ;  and  to  have  no  authority 
whatever,  excepting  that  which  it  derives  from  the 
consideration  that  it  speaks  "  as  the  oracles  of  God" 
speak?  Now,  in  what  respect  the  advocate  of  such 
a  Creed  can  he  considered  as  taking  ground  incon- 
sistent with  the  foregoing  statements,  I  am  utterly  at 
a  loss  to  imagine.  I  should  just  as  soon  have  ex- 
pected to  find  myself  charged  with  having  abandon- 
ed the  christian  doctrine  of  Miracles,  because  I  be- 
lieved in  that  of  Prophecy.  There  is  not  the  shadow 
of  discrepance  in  the  case.  Nay,  if  I  do  not  alto- 
gethe  mistake,  every  phraseology  which  I  employ, 
and  every  statement  which  I  make,  concerning 
Creeds,  are  so  far  from  placing  them  above  the 
Bible,  from  giving  them  any  authority  independ- 
ently of  the  Bible,  or  founding  them  on  the  deci- 
sions of  Synods  and  Councils  ;  that  the  contrary  is 
uniformly  and  strongly  expressed. 

As  Mr.  D.  however,  has  so  totally  failed  of  un- 
derstandino;  the  plain  scope  of  those  passages,  which 
he  has  quoted  from  my  former  book  ;  and  as  it  is 
possible  that  some  others  may  blunder  as  much  as 
he  has  done  ;  it  may  not  be  improper  to  make  a  re- 
mark or  two,  which  will  prevent  the  most  careless 
reader  from  hereafter  falling  into  a  similar  mistake. 


48 

Because  in  one  hook,  I  have  maintained,  that  the 
Fathers  were  all  of  them  fallible  men,  and  many  of 
them  actually  erroneous  ;  that  error  and  ambition 
early  crept  into  the  Church,  and  led  muhitudes  to 
teach  for  doctrines  the  coaimandments  of  men  : — 
and  in  another  booh,  have  asserted  that  Creeds  and 
Confessions  were  found  necessary  in  the  Church, 
even  in  the  Apostles'  days  ;  and  that  they  became 
more  numerous,  and  more  necessary,  in  the  third 
and  fourth  centuries  and  onward,  as  heresies  and 
schisms,  multiplied  to  corrupt  and  disturb  the 
church. Because  I  have  made  both  these  state- 
ments, I  am  charged  with  inconsistency.  But 
wherefore  ?  Both  are  incontrovertibly  true.  If  I 
had  said,  "the  clergy  of  the  third  and  fourth  centu- 
ries formed  and  enforced  certain  Creeds,  ergo  those 

Creeds   were  souftd   and    scriptural," 1  should 

indeed,  have  been  inconsistent  with  myself.  But  I 
said  no  such  thing.  My  assertion  was,  that  Creeds 
and  Confessions  have  actually  been  found  necessary, 
and  have  been  constantly  resorted  to  in  every  age 
of  the  church.  This  assertion  I  endeavoured  to 
illustrate  and  confirm  by  a  reference,  particularly 
to  the  early  history  of  the  church.  Now  the  cor- 
rectness of  this  general  statement,  in  point  of  fact 
Mr  D.  himself  does  not  deny.  Nay  he  unequivocally 
vouches  for  it.  But,  then,  he  insists  that  as  these 
Creeds  were  drawn  up  during  a  period  when  there 
were  so  many  ecclesiasticks  of  questionable  and 
suspicious  character,  we  can  by  no  means  infer  that 
they  were  all  scriptural  and  orthodox  :  or  even  that 


49 

the  practise  itself  of  making  such  Creeds,  is  infalli- 
bly right.  What  is  this  to  the  purpose  ?  Who  had 
made  any  such  assertion  ?  Certainly  I  had  not. 
Still  may  there  not  be  something  more  than  plausi- 
ble in  the  argumem,  that  a  practise  which  began 
in  Apostolick  times  ;  which  has  prevailed  in  all  ages 
and  countries  since  the  christian  church  had  an  or- 
ganized exisience  ;  and  which  retains  a  general  pre- 
valence at  the  present  hour ; — has,  to  say  tiie  least, 
very  strong  presumption  in  its  favour?  Nor- is  this 
argument  materially  weakened  by  the  fact,  that  as- 
piring ecclesiusticks  have  perverted  Creeds  to  un- 
hallowed purposes,  and  even  attempted  to  assign 
them  an  authority  above  that  of  the  Scriptures. 
The  existence  of  counterfeits,  shows  that  there  is 
some  true  coin. 

Mr.  D.  strangely  misunderstands  my  meaning  in 
another  case.  Having  quoted  my  assertion,  that  it 
is  evident  from  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius^  that  every 
particular  worshipping  assembly,  in  the  time  of  that 
Father,  was  furnished  with   a   Bishop  or  Pastor,  a 

bench  of  Presbyters   or   Elders,  and  Deacons; 

he  observes—"  We  understand  this  as  asserting, what 
we  have  already  expressed,— that,  in  those  early 
ages,  the  Churches,  though  Presbyterian  were  inde- 
pendent.'''' 1  certainly  had  no  thought  of  being  un- 
derstood as  Mr.  D>  has  slated;  and  have  no  doubt 
that  every  impartial  man  who  reads  the  work  from 
which  this  extract  is  made,  will  consider  me  as  main- 
taining that  the  Christian  Church  in  the  days  of  Ig- 

D 


50 

nntius^  as  well  as  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  was 
sTt  icTLv  PutbUY  1  iHiAN  :  tliHi  is,  that,  ill  rlioM^  '''\ys 
while  every   particular  ciiureh  was  iiniishcd   wiili  a 
BiNhop,  Overseer,  or  Pastor  (wliicli    in  tho^e  toin- 
parativel}  pure  and  simple  tiiiifs,  were  convertible 
terms)  -  with  a   body   of"   Kidiii^i-LOIders,   and    with 
Deacons;— -all  the  Churches  were  united  under  one 
couimon    faith,    government,    and    s|iiit; — forming 
one  Church — one  Bod) — all  taking  care  to  '•  speak 
the  same  thing,"  ^md  to  hold  fast  the  same  "  form  of 
sotmd    words."     The    Apostolick     Church,    I    then 
thought  and  still  think,    knew  nothinti  of  Indepen- 
dency, in  Mr.  D's  sense  of  the  vvonl.      That  was  a 
iigment   of  error,  invented  1  know  not  when       Let 
any  man  reao  the  account  of  the  8} nod  of  Jtiusa- 
lem,  in  the  1 5th  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  ; 
and,  in  the  next  chapter,  of  the   '"decrees"  of  that 
Synod  being  sent  to  all  the  Churciies,  "to  be  kept  ;" 
and  he  will  see,  in  my  opinion,  the  essential  features 
of    Presb\terianism    as  distinctly    marked,    as    the 
warmest  friend  of  that  prin)itive  and  Apostolick  form 
of  church  government  can  desire. 

Further  ;  \^  hen  I  say,  in  my  "  Introductory  Lect- 
ure," that  "the  great  Protestant  maxim,  that  ihe 
Bible  is  the  only  infallible  rule  of  taith  and  man- 
ners, is  a  precious,  all-important  truth,  and  cannot  be 
too  often  re[ieat(d,  if  it  bk  pkopekly  (jndkr- 
STt^oo;"— Mr.  D.  seems  to  thinkthat  in  the  closing 
j)roviso,  there  is  some  mischievous,  lurkinjr  reserva- 
tion, wiiich  by  no  means  corres[*onds  with  the  spir- 


51 


it  of  what  he  finds  in  the  extracts  from  my  former 
b()(.k.  He  snspeets  that  it  is  intended  artftdly  to 
make  way  for  another  rule,  ro-ordinate  with  the  Bi- 
b!«",  if  not  siif)erior  to  it.  Tiiis  is  a  total  (nisappre- 
hension.  No  such  covert  meaninir  was  intended,  or 
thoiiiiht  of  The  more  literally  and  strictly  the  max- 
im in  question  is  understood,  the  better  it  will  suit 
my  purpose  ;  and  the  only  design  of  (he  closinji  pro- 
vision was,  to  give  notice  that  it  must  be  taken  sim- 
ply and  without  perversion.  Without  such  perver- 
sions, for  example,  as  those  of  whi(  h  Mr.  D.  has 
too  often  given  us  specimens;  in  which  t!ie  plain 
import  of  word^?,  and  the  manifest  spirit  of  an  argu- 
ment, are  made  to  give  place  to  the  creations  of  a 
heated  fancy.  For  although  these  perversions,  whol- 
ly unintentional,  !•  believe,  were  not  fully  develop- 
ed until  after  my  '•  Lecture"  had  apjieared  ;  yet  the 
g(  rms  of  them  were  sufficiently  manitested  in  his 
first  publication. 

III.  In  reply  to  your  request,  that  I  would  "give 
you  my  ojiinion  on  the  proceedings  of  the  Synod  of 
Phii'adefplua,  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Duncan,  and  his 
Conjiregation,  at  their  session  in  Baltimore,  in  Oc- 
tober last,"  1  scarcely  know  what  to  say.  I  am  not  a 
menjber  of  that  Synod  ;  and,  of  course,  have  no 
right  to  sit  in  Judgment  on  its  acts.  I  was  not  pres- 
ent on  the  occasion  referred  to,  and  consequently 
cannot  be  supposed  to  know  any  thinn.  with  cer- 
tainty, respecting  those  acts,  excepting  what  the  prin- 
ted Minutes  of  the  Synod  contain.  Pernaps  even  liie 


Dsi 


expression  of  my  approbation,  maybe  considered  by 
some  as  transcending  the  limits  of  that  modesty  and 
delicacy  which  peculiarly  become  a  Minister  of  the 
Gospel,  when  a  Judicature  of  Christ,  with  which  he 
is  only  remotely  connected,  is  concerned.  Yet,  as 
you  hav^,  with  so  much  frankness,  requested  an  ex- 
pression of  my  opinion,  in  regard  to  one  or  two 
points  in  the  Sy  nodical  proceedings,  I  shall,  with  the 
same  frankness,  give  you  my  judgment,  trusting 
to  the  christian  candour  of  my  Brethren  of  that 
Synod  to  appreciate  the  motives  by  which  1  am 
actuated. 

Your  first  question,  here,  is—"  Whether  it  would 
not  have  been  quite  safe — more  conducive  to  peace 
— and  better  calculated  to  conciliate  the  feelings  of 
the  religious  pul)lick  generally,  if  Mr.  Duncan  had 
been  permitted  to  remain  in  connection  with  the 
church,  and  with  the  Synod  ?" — You  are  not  alone, 
my  dear  Sir,  in  urging  this  query.  "Where  would 
have  been  the  danger,"  others  "have  asked,"  of  al- 
lowing him  to  retain  his  place?  What  harm  could  he 
have  done  ?  He,  and  the  Gentleman  whose  case 
was  comiected  with  his,  had  they  been  received  as 
members  of  the  Presbytery  of  Baltimore^  would 
have  been  but  a  small  minority  of  that  Body;  and, 
of  course,  could  have  carried  no  system  of  measures, 
hostile  to  our  Confession  of  Faith  ;  and,  as  all  al- 
low  them  to  be  men  of  piety  and  integrity,  no  vio- 
lent or  dishonourable  efibrts  on  their  part,  could 
ever  have  been  apprehended." 


53 

It  ought  to  be  borne  in  mind,  that  Mr.  D.  was 
not,  properly  speaking,  cast  out  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  ;  but  voluntaribj withdrew ^-duA  declared  him- 
self "  no  Ioniser  a  meinlxT  of,  or  amenable  to  the 
Synod  of  Phikuielpkia^  nor  to  any  Presbytery  with- 
in its  bounds,  or  under  the  care  of  the  General  As- 
sembly." It  is  true,  indeed,  the  Synod  had  just  be- 
fore passed  a  vote,  which  most  tmequivocally  ex- 
pressed, as  the  opinon  of  a  laro;e  majority,  that  he 
coidd  not  regularly  retain  his  connection  with  the 
Synod  in  consistency  with  the  opinions  which  he  had 
avowed.  Still  they  did  not  formally  exclude  him. 
The  act  which  severed  hi;- connection  with  our  Body 
was,  in  the  first  instance,  his  oivn,  and  ought  to  be 
so  understood  ;  although  [)romptly  followed  up  by 
an  act  of  the  Synod,  ratifying  and  declaring  the 
fact,  that  he  was  no  longer  to  be  considered  as  a 
Minister  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

Now  I  have  no  hesitation  in  acknowledsine:  that, 
so  far  from  thinkiiiii  Mr.  D's  continuance  in  the 
Church  likely  to  promote  peace  and  union  ;  I  am 
persuaded  it  is  more  safe,  more  conducive  to  har- 
mony, and  more  adapted  to  promote  good  feelings 
and  edification  on  both  sides,  that  he  should  be  en- 
tirely separated  from  it.  I  know  nothing;  of  the  ar- 
guments which  were  employed  on  the  floor  of'the 
Synod,  in  favour  of  the  course  which  was  taken,  nor 
of  the  manner  in  which  they  were  uttered.  But  I 
argue  thus  :  Mr.  D.  had  published  a  book  against 
Creeds  and  Confessions,  which  he  avowed  and  jus- 
tified.    He  declared  to  the  venerable  Committee  of 


54 

the  Synod,  a}3pointpd  to  confer  with  him,  that  he 
siili  eiitt'itaiiied  the  opinions  published  in  that  book; 
tliat  he  clainied  a  right  freelj  to  express  them  oq 
all  occasions  on  v\hi(h  he  should  think  it  his  duty 
so  to  do,  aiid  to  act  accordmgly.  His  companion  ia 
sentiment,  and  in  conduct,  the  Rev.  Mr.  MacleaHj 
made,  most  unequivocally,  the  same  avowals.  In 
these  circumstances,  the  Synod  was  called  to  decide, 
whether  it  was  for  the  purity,  peace  ant  edihcation 
of  the  church,  to  attach  to  one  of  their  Presbyteries 
two  Gentlemen  who  had  avowed  the  most  ardent 
opposition  to  all  clerical  subscriptions  to  Creeds  and 
Formtdas  ;  who,  a  few  months  before,  had  actually 
concurred  in  licensiuj^  and  sending  forth  mto  the 
church  a  Preai  her  without  requiring  him  to  adopt 
our  Confession  of  Faith,  and  had  thereby  occasion- 
ed nmch  trouble  ;  and  who,  by  their  avowe  I  opin- 
ions and  persevering  conduct,  had  given  every  pledge 
that  whenever  any  subscription  of  that  kind  was  to 
be  exacted  from  candidates,  either  for  licensure  or 
ordination,  they  would  zealously  o[ipose  a  com- 
pliance with  that  part  of  our  ecclesiastical  Constitu- 
tion. The  Brethren  in  question,  it  is  to  be  remember- 
ed, too,  were  of  no  mean  or  inactive  minds.  On 
the  contrary,  the}  had  shewn  themselves,  to  be  ar- 
dent, determined,  eloquent  and  indefatigable  in  the 
propagation  of  their  hostile  sentiments ;  and  the 
candidate  whom  they  had  licensed  without  subscrip- 
tion, a  few  months  before,  was  said  to  have  manifest- 
ed peculiar  and  imremitling  ardour  in  the  same 
cause.     Is  it  wonderful,  then,  that  the  Synod,  even 


55 


if  they  had  consultPfl  nothing  but  "  the  tilings  which 
make  for  peace,"  should  feel  an  invinc'ible  reluctance, 
to  receiving  into  the  bosom  of  one  of  their  most  iui- 
porrant  Pres[)yteries,  seeds  of  discord  and  strife,  so 
vivid,  and  likely  to  be  so  fruitful  ?  Would  they  not 
have  been  likely  to  entail  inces^aut  warfare  on  that 
part  of  the  Church,  and  eventually,  perhaps,  on  the 
W  hole  of  it,  rather  than  to  promote  its  "  peace  ?" 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  Presbytery  of  Balti- 
more  is,  as  to  numbers,  a  small  body:  so  small  in- 
deed, that  on  account  of  the  advanced  age  and  de- 
licate health  of  some  of  the  members,  aud  th*'  dis- 
tant residence  of  others  from  the  usual  place  of 
meeting,  it  has  been  sometimes  extremely  difficult 
t(  form  a  constitutional  quorinu.  It,  therefore,  not 
only  might,  by  possibility,  happen,  but  would  be 
osten  extremely  likely,  in  present  circumNtani  es,  in 
fact,  to  happen,  that  two  individuals  of  Mr.  U's  sen- 
timents, near  at  hand,  and  punctual  in  their  atten- 
dance, would  form  a  majority  of  the  Presbytery, 
and,  of  consequence,  be  able,  in  all  such  cases,  to 
controid  its  proceedings.  Now  we  have  only  to 
suppose  two  or  three  such  cases  actually  to  have  oc- 
curred, and,  on  each  occasion,  one  or  two  mem- 
bers, "  like  minded"  with  themselves  to  have  been 
brought  into  the  Presbjtcry,  and  the  permanent 
controul  of  its  proceedings  would,  of  course,  have 
accrued  to  an  anti-Confessional  majority.  And 
w  hen  once  a  single  Presbytery  was  completely  secu- 
red and  subjected  to  such  a  party,  it  is  easy  to  per- 


56 


ceive.  how  it  might  be  converted  into  a  machine  for 
multiplying  its  own  advocates,  to  an  indetinite  ex- 
tent, and  sending  them  all  over  the  church.  Can 
any  reflecting  man  for  a  moment,  wonder  that  the 
Synod  should  be  unwilling  to  run  the  risk  of  such 
a  result  ? 

And  all  this,  I  am  persuaded,  my  dear  Sir,  would 
strike  you  with  much  greater  force,  and  present  it- 
self to  your  mind  with  much  more  solemn  interest, 
if  you  were  more  familiar  than  you  can  be  supposed 
to  be,  with  the  early  history  of  our  church  in  this 
country.  Nearly  a  century  has  now  elapsed  since 
the  first  painful  struggle,  in  reference  to  the  very- 
point  of  the  present  controversy,  agitated  to  its 
centre  the  infant  American  Church.  Some  years 
after  our  ministers  began  to  organize  themselves 
into  Presbyteries,  they  had  no  other  bond  of  union 
than  the  Bible  and  their  old  habits  :  And  as  they 
came  from  different  couniries,  and  their  early  habits 
had  been  in  many  respects,  different,  so  they  knew, 
perfectly  well,  that  many  good  men  interpreted  the 
Bible  very  differently.  They  soon  found,  therefore, 
by  painful  experience,  the  necessity  of  some  more  ex- 
plicit test,  or,  in  other  words,  of  some  explanatory 
statement,  by  the  application  of  which  they  might 
ascertain  in  what  manner  candidates  for  licensure 
and  ordination  muhustood  the  Bible  ;  since  all  class- 
es,— the  heretick  equally  with  the  orthodox — were 
ready  to  profess  a  general  l)elief  in  the  holy  Scrip- 
tures,    After  much   controversy  on  the  subject,   a 


57 


Hiajrtrity  of  the  Synod  of  Pluladelphia, — then  the 
only  Synod  in  the  American  Coh)ni»'s, — in  the  year 
1729,  jDHssed  what  th^y  called  "  l\\e.  Adopting  Act^^— 
which  required  all  the  actual  Ministers  within  their 
bounds,  as  well  as  all  candidates  for  licensure  and 
ordination,  to  adopt  the  Westminister  Confession  of 
Faith,  together  with  the  Larger  and  Shorter  Cate- 
chisms, as  the  confession  of  their'faith.  This  was 
accordingly  done :  and  amidst  all  the  conflicts  and 
chaciges  in  our  beloved  church,  from  that  day  to  the 
present,  the  same  ecclesiastical  Creed  has  held  its 
place  among  us,  and  been  sacredly  regarded  ;  ex- 
cepting that  in  the  Formula  of  subscription  which 
was  adopted  in  1788,  and  which  has  been  in  use 
since  that  time,  nothing  is  said  resprctins;  the  Cate- 
chisms. We  have  known,  then,  as  a  Church,  the 
inconvenience  and  the  mischief*  of  being  without  a 
p!il)lickly  adopted  and  accredited  Confession  of 
Faith.  We  have  been  hap[)y  enough  to  adopt  one, 
after  considerable  delay,  and  much  painful  conHict. 
It  has  been  blest  to  ns,  as  a  bond  of  union,  and  as  a 
fence  to  keep  out  of  the  sacred  fold  many  an  unwor- 
thy person,  who  would  otherwise  have  broken  in. 
And  shall  we  now  be  confident! v  told,  by  those  w!io 
have  entirely  forgotten,  or  w  ho  inner  knew,  all  that 
has  past,  that  our  attachment  to  Creeds  is  a  blind 
prejulice;  that  they  nre  mischievous  rather  than 
useful ;  and  that  we  ou<iht  to  abandon  them  all 
without  delay  ?  It  is  too  much! 

The  fact  is,  if  our  comparatively  pure  and  happy 


58 

Chinch  were  unwise  enough  to  suffer  herself  to  be 
wlieedled  out  of  her  unequalled  Confessiou  of  Faith, 
and  to  trj,  for  a  time,  the  expedient  of  doing  with- 
out one  ; — she  would,  no  doubt,  be  compelled,  in 
the  coursie  of  a  few  jears,  by  a  train  of  the  most 
disastrous  cousequences,  to  retrace  her  steps,  and  to 
try  to  regain  what  she  had  lost.  But  she  would  not 
be  able  to  regain  it.  Ten  or  fifteen  years  of  Con- 
fessionless  laxness  would  ad,mit  into  her  ministerial 
ranks  so  many  latitudinarians  and  hereticks,  that 
her  harmony  and  strength  would  be  gone,  and  like 
Sampson  shorn  of  his  locks,  she  would  be  to  the 
Philistines  around  her  a  spectacle  of  despoiled  and 
departed  glory.  Firmly  believino;  thus,  you  will 
not  be  surprized  to  discover  that  1  regard  every  at- 
tempt to  cast  odium  on  Creeds  and  Confessions,with 
very  much  the  same  feelings  with  which  I  should 
see  the  infidelj  or  the  radical  hererick,  labouring  to 
poison  the  principles  of  the  community  ; — with  un- 
feigned grief,  and  the  deepest  abhorrence.  Those 
who  are  engaged  in  this  unhallowed  work,  nodoubt, 
think  it  just  and  right.  They  are  verily  persuaded, 
as  some  errorists,  of  no  small  turpitude,  mentioned 
in  the  sacred  history,  were,  that,  by  pursuing  their 
object  they  are  "  doing  God  service."  I  trust  no 
other  weapons  will  ever  be  raised  against  them, than 
those  of  argument  and  prayer.  But  they  must  al- 
low others  to  have  consciences  as  well  as  them- 
selves :  and  to  represent  their  efforts,  as  they  honest- 
ly vifw  them, — as,  in  proportion  to  their  success, 
vitally  and  incalculably  mischievous. 


59 

On  the  whole,  then,  it  is  evident  to  me,that  it  would 
have  been  so  far  from  being  conducive  to  "peace"  to 
retain  Mr.  D.  and  his  companion  in  our  church,  and 
to  have  a  confessional  battle,  if  I  may  so  ex- 
press it,  every  time  a  candidate  was  to  be  licensed 
or  ordained  by  the  Presbytery  with  which  they  would 
have  been  connected  ;  that  the  only  way  to  se- 
cure "  peace"  with  them  was  to  separate  them  from 
our  Body.  As  matters  now  stand,  there  is  no  neces- 
sity of  quarrelling  with  them  ;  for  there  is  no  neces- 
sity oi  having  intercourse  with  them  ;  which  could 
not  have  been  sa'id  if  they  were  still  connected  with 
us.  Whether  we  shall  have  harmonious  and  fratern- 
al intercourse  with  them  hereafter,  will  d(^pend  on 
circumstances.  Allow  me,  for  one,  to  say,  that  none 
will  more  cordially  rejoice  than  myself,  if  circum- 
stances should  be  such  as  not  only  to  admit  of  in- 
tercourse, but  to  open  the  way  for  that  which  is  of 
the  most  affectionate  and  edifying  kind. 

You  intimate,  further,  that  "  some  who  do  not 
contlemn  the  Synod  for  deciding  that  Mr.  U.  could 
not,  with  his  opinions  and  measures,  regularly  be- 
long to  their  body;  have  yet  considered  them  as  ac- 
tincr  in  a  very  high  handed,  and  even  tyraimical 
manner,  in  proceeding  to  dissolve  the  pastoral  rela- 
tion between  Vjessieiirs  Duncan  and  Maclean^  and 
their  respective  congregations,  and  directing  the  lat- 
ter to  be  placed  under  the  care  of  the  Presbyteries 
of  Baltimore  and  Carlisle.''''  I  am  aware  that  this 
measure  has  been  the  subject  of  much  severe  anim- 


adversion  ;  which,  however,  T  must  think,  ha«!  aris- 
en, at  least  in  many  ca^es,  from  an  entire  want  of 
acquaintance  with  the  fundamental  principles  of 
church  government,  as  well  as  with  the  facts  on 
which  the  S}/nod  proceeded. 

You  prohably  know,Sir,  that  those  Cong^re'gations, 
— especially  that  of  Mr.  D.  had  repeatedly  recofiniz- 
ed  their   connection   with  our   Ciiurch,  by  sending 
members  of  their  sessions  to  the  several  judicatories 
of  the  church.     The  fact,  that  they  we're  under  the 
care   of  the  Synod,  though   not  of  any    particular 
Presbytery,   (in   consequence   of  the  dissolution   of 
the  Second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia)  was  indu- 
bitable, and   I    presume,   acknowledged.     The   fact 
of  their  ministers  withdrawing  from  our  church,  by 
no  means  severed  their  connection  with   it.     That 
connection  remained  untouched.     And  as  their  Pas- 
tors were  declared  to  be  no  longer  ministers  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  it  certainly  behoved  tlie  Syn- 
od to  decide  and  to  exjiress  something  respecting  the 
Churches  conimitted  to  their  care.     They  acccord- 
injily  directed  how  those  churches  were  to    be  dis- 
posed of,  as  h)ng  as  they  voluntarily  remained  under 
the  care  of    the  S\nod.     The  Sjnod  knew  perfect- 
ly well  that  those  Congregations,  or  any  others  con- 
nected with  them,  have  a  right  to  withdraw,  at  any 
moment  they  please,  either  for  the  purpose  of  being 
independent,  or  of  joining  any  other   body.     And,  I 
will  answer  for  it,  if  the  Congregations  in  question 
should  whhdraw,  as  I  presume  they  will,  if  they  have 
not  done  Aialready,  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Syn- 


61 

od,  you  will  never  hear  of  that  venerable  judirato- 
ry  haviiij^  aitenipted  to  reach  forth  her  haud  to  re- 
claim or  coerce  them.  'I'lie  principle  upon  which  ail 
our  Synods  and  Presbyteries  act  is  this — When- 
ever con;^re<iations  voluntard^  put  themselves  under 
their  rare,  the}  are  alwavs  to  be  considered  as  under 
that  care,  until  they  actually  withdraw  ;  after  which 
all  claim  of  jurisdiction  o\er  them  ceases.  It  is 
with  conj^regations  as  it  is  with  individual  church- 
members  ;  no  man,  or  body  of  men,  possesses  or 
claims  the  pov\er  of  preventing  their  departure  from 
om-  couimuiiion,  whenever  they  think  proper,  pro- 
vided they  do  it  in  an  orderly  tnanner.  Ano  accord- 
ingly, I  have  known  a  congregation,  originally  inde- 
pendent, after  a  while,  requesting  to  be  taken  under 
the  care  of  a  Presbytery.  Their  request  was  grant- 
ed. In  a  short  time, wishing  to  call  as  their  Pastor 
a  man  whom  the  Presbytery  could  by  no  means 
countenance,  thev  voted  to  withdraw  from  the  juris- 
diction  of  the  Presbytery,  which  they  accordingly 
did,  without,  so  far  as  1  know,  a  word  being  uttered, 
or  an  effort  made,  on  the  part  of  the  Presbytery,  to 
retain  them.  But  the  history  of  the  business  does 
not  end  here.  Within  a  few  weeks,  the  same  con- 
gregation has  again  applied  to  the  same  Presbytery 
to  be  again  received  under  its  care,  and  has  been 
again  kindly  received.  Can  there  be  a  stronger 
practical  proof,  that  the  principles  upon  which  our 
ecclesiastical  judicatories  act,  are  as  remote  as  possi- 
ble froni  those  of  assumption  or  tyranny?  They  at- 
tempt no  more — wish  no  more,  than  to  exercise  that 
mild  and  wholesome  system  of  inspection,  care  and. 


62 

discipline,  whlcl>  they  have  published  to  the  world, 
over  those  who  voluntarily  place  themselves  under 
that  discipline^  and  only  so  long  as  they  voluntarily 
choose  to  submit  to  it  To  charge  a  judicatory  faith- 
fully acting  upon  these  principles,  with  ecclesiastical 
oppression,  is  surely  something  worse  than  absur- 
dity. 

The  truly  venerable  and  excellent  members  of 
the  Committee  of  Synod,  who  were  appointed  to 
confer  with  Messieurs  Duncan  and  Maclean^  and 
who  reported  in  favour  of  retaining  them  as  mem- 
bers of  the  Synod,  have  been  considered  and  pro- 
nounced, by  a  number  of  ill  informed  persons,  as 
"  on  the  side  of  those  Gentlemen  ;" — and  have  re- 
ceived much  praise,  from  certain  quarters,  evidently 
founded  on  this  supposed  fact.  But  there  cannot 
be  a  greater  mistake.  The  members  of  that  Com- 
mittee, in  their  Report,  on  record,  and  now  printed, 
most  solemnly  declare — "  That  they  do  not  in  the 
least  concur  with  these  Brethren  in  their  opinion  re- 
lative to  Creeds  and  Confessions  ;  and  most  expli- 
citly avow  their  full  belief  of  the  utility  of  Confes- 
sions in  the  Church,  and  especially  of  the  excellence 
of  that  to  which  the  Church  to  which  they  belong, 
adheres."  On  this  point,  there  seems  to  have  been 
no  diversity  of  sentiment.  Messieurs  D.  and  M.  had 
not,  it  seems,  even  a  solitary  individual  in  the  body 
who  undertook  to  supj)ort  tlieir  opinions.  The 
Synod  was  unanimous.  The  members  differed 
only  as  to  the  safety  and  expediency  of  retaining  in 


63 

their  body  the  two  Brethren  alhided  to,  notvvith- 
stHiidiiii];  their  opinions.  And  on  this  question  a 
large  majority  decided  in  the  negative. 

From  the  foregoing;  remarks,  you'  will  perceive 
my  opinion  to  t)e,  that  the  Synod,  in  the  case  of  Mr. 
D.  acted  regularly,  wisely,  temperately,  and  with 
a  dignified  and  steady  adherence  to  their  published 
rules.  What  the  immediate  consequences  may  be, 
it  is  not  easj?  to  decide. — Perhaps  painful,  for  a  time^ 
to  both  parties — as  is  often  the  case  when  an  un- 
welcome duty  is  faithfully  performed.  But  thai  the 
effect  will  be,  in  the  end,  salutary,  I  have  no  more 
doubt  than  I  have  that  truth  is  mighty,  and  will 
prevail. 

IV.  You  give  me  to  understand,  that,  although 
"  you  are  yourself  friendly  to  Creeds  and  Confessi- 
ons, under  certain  limits ;  that  yet  you  have  been 
constrained  to  doubt  whether  any  Creed  intended 
to  be  subscribed  by  all  candidates  for  office  in  a 
church  ought  ever  to  contain  any  other  articles  than 
those  whi(;h  are  strictly  fimdamental:'''' — in  other 
word's,  whether  we  ought  ever  to  insert  among  the 
terms  of  ministerial  or  christian  communion,  any 
more  than  some  half  a  dozen  items,,  the  reception 
of  which  is  generally  considered  as  ahsoliUely  essen- 
tial to  Christian  character.  This  is  a  question  of 
real  importance,  which  certainly  deserves  grave 
consideration,  and  a  candid  answer.  And,  for  one, 
I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying,  that,  in  my  opinion, 


84 

church  Creeds  not  only  lawfully  may^  but  ahvf^vs 
oiiglit^  to  contain  a  nmnljer  of  articles  besides 
those  which  are  fundamental.  And  to  establish 
this,  as  it  appears  to  me,  no  other  pi  oof  is  ne- 
cessary than*  siu)ply  to  remark,  that  there  are 
m  my  points  confessedly  not  fundamental,  concern- 
ing which,  neverth(^less,  it  is  of  the  utmost  impor 
tance,  to  Christian  peace  and  edification,  that  the 
members,  and  especially  the  ministers,  of  every 
church  should  be  harmonious  in  their  views  and 
practise.  As  loug  as  the  visille  church  of  Christ 
continues  to  be  divided  into  different  sections  or 
denominations,  the  several  Creeds,  which  they  etn- 
plov,  if  they  are  to  answer  auy  effectual  pmpose  at 
all,  must  be  so  constructed  as  to  exclude  Irom  each 
those  teachers  whom  it  conscieutiously  believes  to 
be  unscriptural  and  corrupt ;  and  whom,  as  long  as 
it  retains  this  belief,  it  ought  to  exclude. 

To  exemplify  my  meanins;.  The  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  most  other  denominations,  who  have 
a  regidar  system  of  government,  believe  that  the 
christian  Ministry  is  a  divitie.  ordinance,  and  that 
none  but  those  who  have  been  regidarly  auth(Trized 
to  discharge  these  functions,  ought,  by  any  means, 
to  attempt  to  preac'h  the  Gospel,  or  administer  the 
Sacraments  of  the  Church.  Yet  there  are  wvy 
pious,  excellent  men,  who  have  adopted  the  senti' 
ments  of  some  high-ton*^d  Independents,  uho  verily 
think  that  every  "gifted  brother,"  whether  ordain- 
ed or  not,  has  as  good  a  right  to  preach  as  any  man ; 


65 


and,  if  invitrd  l>y  the  chnitli  to  do  it,  to  administer 
the  SHcrarnfMits.  Now,  no  sober-niinried  Preslj_)Te- 
riaii  wiil  consider  this  as  a  tundanienial  question. 
Fnndrunental,  indeed,  ii  is,  to  eeclesinstieal  order  ; 
but  to  the  existence  of  christian  character  it  is  not. 
Men  may  differ  entirely  on  this  point,  and  yet  be 
equMlly  united  to  Christ  by  faitli,  juid,  of  course 
equally  safe  as  to  their  eternal  prospects.  But 
would  any  real,  consistent  Presbyterian  be  vvillins: 
to  connect  himself  with  a  church,  callinoj  itself  by 
that  name,  in  which,  while  one  portion  considered 
none  but  a  regtilar  minister  as  competent  to  tiie 
discharge  of  the  functions  allud.  d  to ;  as  ujany  of 
the  other  portion  as  chose,  claimed  and  actually  ex- 
ercised the  right,  to  rise  in  the  congregation,  and 
preach,  baptize,  and  dispense  the  Lord's  Supper, 
when  and  how  each  might  think  proper;  and  not 
only  so,  but  when  the  ordained  ministers  occupy- 
ing the  pulpit  in  succession,  differed  no  less  entire- 
ly among  themselves  in  reference  to  the  disputed 
question  ;  some  encour.tging,  an(i  others  repressing, 
the  efforts  of  these  "  gifted  brethren  ?"  I  do  not  ask 
whether  such  a  church  could  be  tranquil  or  comfort- 
able ;  but  whether  it  could  possibly  exist  in  a  state 
of 'coherence,  for  twelve  months  together? 

Take  another  example.  No  man  in  his  senses 
will  consider  the  question  which  divides  the  Pedo- 
baptists  and  the  Antipedobaptists  as  a  fundamental 
one.  Though  I  have  no  doubt  that  infant  baptism  is 
a  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  and  an  exceedingly  inipor- 

F 


6Q 

tant  doctrine ;  and  that  the  rejection  of  it  is  a  mis- 
chievous error  ;  }et  1  have  qiiiie  as  little  doubt  that 
some  eminently  pious  men  have  been  of  a  different 
opinion.     But    what   would   be  the   situation  of  a 
church  equally  divided,  or  nearly  so,  on  this  point  ; 
ministers  as  well  as  private  members  constantly  dif- 
fering among  themselves;    members  of  each   party 
conscientiously   persuaded     that    the    others    were 
wrong ;  each    la^ying  great  stress  on   the    point  of 
difference,  as    one   concerning    which    there    could 
be  no  compromise,  or  accommodation;  all  claiming, 
and    endeavouring  to  exercise  the   right,    not  oidy 
to  reason,  but  to  act,  according  to    their  respective 
convictions  ;    and   every   one   zealously  endeavour- 
ing to  make    proselytes   to  his  own    principles  and 
practise  ?     Which    would    such   a  church  most  re- 
semble— the   builders  of  Babel,  when    their   speech 
was    confounded  ;  or   a   holy    and    united     Atmily, 
*'  walking  together  in  the  fear  of   the    Lord,  and 
in  the  consolations  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  edifying 
one  another  in  love  ?" 

Let  me  offer  one  i 'lustration  more.  The  question 
between  Presbyterians  and  Prelatists  is  generally  ac- 
knowledged not  to  be  fundamental.  I  do  not  mean 
that  this  is  acknowledged  by  such  of  our  Episcopal 
brethren  as  coolly  consign  to  what  they  are  pleased 
to  call  the  "  uncovenanted  mercy  of  God,"  all  those 
denominaiions  who  have  not  a  ministry  Episcopally 
ordained ;  and  w  ho,  on  account  of  this  exclusive 
sentiment  are   styled    by  Bishop   Andrews,    "iron 


67 

hearted,"  and  by  Archbishop  Wake,  "madmen:" 
but  my  meaning  is,  that  all  Presbyterians,  without 
exception  ;  a  great  majority  of  the  best  Prelatists 
themselves  ;  and  all  moderate,  sober-minded  Protes- 
tants, of  every  country,  acknowledge  that  this  point 
of  controversy  is  one  which  does  by  no  means  affect 
christian  character  or  hope.  Still  is  it  not  plain, 
that  a  body  of  ministers  entirely  differing  among 
themselves  as  to  this  point;  though  they  mijjht  love, 
and  commune  with,  each  other,  as  Christians ; 
could  not  possibly  act  harmoniously  together  in  the 
important  rite  of  ordination  ;  whatever  they  might 
do  in  other  religious  concerns  ? 

In  all  these  cases,  it  is  evident  there  is  nothing 
fundamental  to  the  existence  of  vital  piety.  Yet  it 
is  equally  evident,  that  those  who  differ  entirely  and 
zealously  concerning  the  points  supposed,  cannot  be 
comfortable  in  the  same  ecclesiastical  communion. 
But  how  is  their  coming  together,  and  the  conse- 
quent discord  and  strife,  which  would  be  inevitable, 
to  be  preventt^d  ?  I  know  of  no  method  but  so  con- 
structing their  Confessions  of  Faith  as  to  form  diff- 
erent families  or  denominations,  and  to  shut  out  from 
each  those  who  are  hostile  to  its  distinguishing 
principles  of  order.  Perhaps  it  will  be  said,  that  all 
such  precautions  are  unecessary  ;  that  those  who 
materially  differ  on  such  points  as  have  been  enu- 
merated, would  never  attemj)t  )r  desire  to  intrude, 
into  churches  with  which  the}  could  not  substantial- 
ly co-operate.     But  the  contrary  has  been  found  to 


68 

be  most  notoriously  the  fact  in  a  multitude  of  rases. 
Nay,  ue  jiced  no  other  example  in  point  tlian  ihe 
case  of  Messieurs  Duncan  and  MaaW/Mhrmsrives. 
If  we  may  judge  from  Mr.  I)  s  book,  they  are.  in 
principle,  zealous  JndepemUrUs  ;  a;  any  rate,  tlu^v 
are  utterly  at  war,  as  we  h  tveciearly  seen,  with  one 
of  the  most  jjrominent  and  conspieuous  features  in 
in  our  system  of  government.  Yet  thev  applied  to 
be  received  into  one  of  our  Presbyteries;  and  it 
was,  in  fact,  nothing  but  our  Confession  of  Faith 
which  prevented  their  reception.  Of  the  same 
thing,  examples  almost  numberless  might  be  pro- 
duced. One  of  the  most  remarkable  that  now  oc- 
curs to  my  recollection,  is  that  of  the  Kev.  John 
Glass,  founder  of  the  sect  commonly  called  Gtass- 
ites,  or  Sandemanians.  Mr.  Glass,  a  little  less  than 
a  century  ago,  was  a  minister  in  good  standing  in 
the  Church  of  Scotland;  a  man  of  excellent  tal- 
ents, and  of  unblemished  moral  and  religiotis  char- 
acter. After  a  tiai^,  he  became  a  zealous,  and  even 
violent  Independent;  indulged,  in  public  and  in 
private,  in  the  most  unreserved  vituperation  of  the 
Presbyterian  form  of  Government,  as  anti  christian 
and  mischievous  in  a  high  degree  ;  and,  when  call- 
ed to  an  account  for  thus  incessantly  vilifying  and 
endeavouring  to  degrade  a  religious  community  of 
which  he  had  solemnly  vowed  to  be  an  advocate 
and  defender,  he  attempted  to  justify  his  condiut, 
and  declared  that  it  was  his  intention  to  continue 
to  pursue  the  same  course  as  often  and  as  long 
as  he  saw  cause.     At  the  same  time,  lie  professed 


69 


an  earnest  desire  to  remain  in  connection  with  the 
chdrch  which  he  thus  continually  reviled  aud  op- 
posed ;  and  when  excluded  t'roni  it,  he  bitterly  com- 
plained of  the  act  ot"  exclusion,  as  an  "  oppres- 
sive" aiivl  "  persecuting"  act !  The  fact  is,  there  are 
many  reasons  why  men  often  wish  to  ttvev,  or  to  re- 
main, in  a  church,  the  administration  and  order,  and 
even  doctrine  of  which,  they  entirely  dislike.  'Ihey 
do  not  intend  to  act  dishonestly,  nor  are  they  ci>n- 
scious  of  doing  so  ;  but  old  habits,  personal  connec- 
tions, an  agreeable  settlement, the  plea  of  doing  more 
good,  &c.  led  many  to  take  and  lo  vindicate  a  course 
of  conduct  in  relation  to  this  matter,  of  which,  in  ref- 
erence to  any  othrr  s^ubject,  they  would  readily  see 
the  crookedness  and  criminality.  I  have  even  known 
a  licensed  preaclier  remain  for  years  in  connexion 
with  the  Presbyterian  church,  from  sucii  considera- 
tions as  were  just  mentioned — when  his  private  con- 
victions were  in  favour  of  the  nntipedobapt;st  doc- 
trine ;  but  as  he  was  never  ordained,  and,  of  course, 
was  never  called  to  administer  the  ordinance  of  Bap- 
tism, he  thought  it  allowal)le  to  follow  his  inclina- 
tion, and  remain  in  his  original  connection. 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  unless  Confessions  of  Faith 
contain  articles  not,  strictly  speakinii:,  fundamental, 
they  cannot  possibly  answer  one  |)rincipal  purpose  for 
which  they  are  formed,  viz.  guarding  churches  which 
receive  the  pure  order  and  discipline,  as  well  as 
truth,  of  Scripture,  from  the  intrusion  of  teachers, 
who,  though  they  may  be  pious,  yet  could  not  fail 


70 

to  disturb  the  peace,  and  mar  the   edification  of  the 
more  correct  and  sound  part  of  the  body. 

V.  You  give  me  to  understand,  that  many  of  your 
neighbours  have  received  such  impressions  from  the 
late  proceedings  of  the  Synod  in  Baltimore,  that 
they  are  disposed  to  adopt,  nay,  that  some  of  them 
have  adopted  the  conclusion,  that  "  the  spirit  of  Pres- 
byterian church  government  is  encroaching,  tyran- 
nical, and  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the  genius  of 
American  institutions,  and  with  the  liberal  andjcon- 
ciliatory  spirit  of  the  day."— 

Never  was  there  a  more  unjust  charge.  Let  us 
judge  of  the  spirit  and  character  of  Piesbyterianism 
as  it  appears  in  this  Counthy,  .where,  for  more 
than  a  hundred  years,  it  has  subsisted,  in  something 
like  its  primitive,  and,  truly  apostolical  simplicity  ; 
wholly  unconnected  with  the  civil  government ; 
never,  in  any  case,  seeking  an  alliance  with  it,  or 
aided  by  it;  repeatedly  itself  oppressed,  but  never 
oppressing;  and  every  where  commending  itself  to 
popular  favour,  to  a  degree,  every  thing  taken  into 
view,  beyond  any  oihrr  denomination  in  the  United 
States;  not  by  intrigue  ;  not  by  stooping  to  the  arts 
of  an  accommodating  and  adulatory  policy ;  not 
even  by  sending  out  a  host  of  Itinerants,  to  pene- 
trate into  every  nook,  and  corner,  and  neighbourhood 
of  the  land,  to  plant  the  standard  of  the  cross,  as 
some  other  rtispectt^d  denominations  have  commend- 
ably  done,  and  as  \Y£.  ought  to  have  done,  in  obe- 


71 

dience  to  the  command  of  our  Lord  :  But,  under 
the  divine  l)lessinji;,  by  the  character  of  our  eccle- 
siasiical  government,  and  the  spirit  of  our  evangel- 
ical ministrations,  commendiiio;  themselves  to  the 
judgments  and  consciences  of  the  people.  Born 
and  bred  in  the  bosom  of  this  church  ;  knowing  it 
well,  ever  since  I  have  been  capable  of  knowing 
any  thing  ;  and  having  been  for  more  than  thirty 
years  a  partaker,  in  its  judicial  transactions,  I  should 
be  guilty  of  an  act  of  gross  injustice  to  my  venerated 
spiritual  Mother,  if  I  did  not  declare  that,  so  far  as  I 
know,  there  never  was  an  ecclesiastical  Body  that 
intrigued  less  ;  that  encroached  less  ;  that  insisted  less 
upon  her  own  peculiarilies;  that  was  less  disposed  to 
contend  even  for  her  rights  ;  and  that  manifested  less 
of  the  sprit  of  sect,  than  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States.  Ever  ready  to  meet  other 
churches  more  than  half-way  in  plans  of  intercourse 
and  co-operation ;  often  forbearing  even  to  defend 
herself,  when  there  was  a  probability  that  defence 
would  lead  to  controversy ;  and  constantly,  as  a 
church,  expending  her  labour,  and  her  funds,  in  send- 
ing the  Gospel  to  the  heathen  and  the  poor,  she  has 
set  as  blameless  an  example  of  deference  to  the 
rights  of  cfnscience,  and  given  as  honourable  a 
specimen  of  zeal  for  tlie  welfare  of  all  classes  of  her 
members,  as  any  other  church,  to  say  the  least,  in 
this  favoured  land  of  liberty  and  privilege. 

Of  all  this,  the  very  constitution  of  our   Church 
affords,  as  far  as  any  such  thing  can  do,  a  solemn 


72 

pledge  anrl  guaranty.  Our  judicatories,  from  the 
hi:*nest  to  the  lowest,  are  all  made  up  o  laymen  as 
well  as  clergymen  :  and  in  all  of  ihem,  excejjting  the 
highest,  if  the  theory  of  our  government  were  car- 
ried into  complete  effect,  there  would  be  a  larger 
nuaiher  of  the  former  than  of  the  latter;  and  in  the 
highest  judicatory  an  equal  number.  This,  of  course, 
gives  to  the  laity  of  our  communion  constant  and 
intimate  access  to  all  our  plans  and  measures,  and 
all  the  opportunity  that  can  be  desired  to  exercise 
their  full  share  of  power  in  controuling  those  mea- 
sures. The  people  cannot  be  oppressd,  unless  thej 
conspire  to  oppress  themselves  ! 

And  as  the  manner  in  which  our  judicatories  are 
constituted,  is  well  adapted  to  secure  the  rights  of 
the  people;  so  the  principles  upon  which  their  juris- 
diction is  founded  and  administered,  equally  preclude 
the  possibility  of  oppression.  They  claim,  as  I  said 
before,  no  authority  over  any  minister  or  any  con- 
gregation, excepting  those  who,  after  examining  the 
published  doctrine  and  order  of  the  Church,  and  de- 
claring their  approbation  of  the  same,  have  volun- 
tarily placed  themselves  under  that  authority.  And 
even  while  such  ministers  or  congregations  remain 
under  their  jurisdiction,  they"  claim  no  right  to  dic- 
tate to  their  consciences  ;  and  recognize  their  entire 
liberty  to  withdraw  from  that  jurisdiction  the  mo- 
ment they  think  the  exercise  of  it  no  longer  for 
their  edification.  In  short,  the  sum  total  of  their 
claim,  on  any  minister  or  any  congregation,  is,  that 


73 

as  lon^  as  they  think  proper  to  remain  under  their 
inspection  nnd  care,  thev  conforn)  fliemselves  to  the 
rules  of  the  ehun  h,Hn{l  treat  with  respect  and  kind- 
ness their  end«avours  to  tjnard  tiiem  from  error,  and 
to  promote  their  best  interests.  In  otiier  words, 
their  sole  object  and  claim  are,  to  watch  over  the 
moral  and  spiritual  welfare  of  those  only  who  ex- 

PUESS  A  DK^IKE  TO  RECH^Ve  THIS  SEKVICE  \T 
THEIK   HANDS,  and   oulv   AS    LONG   AS  THEY  CONTINUE 

to  manifest  a  desire  to  receive  it.  Is  this  "  ryran- 
jij?''  Is  this  "  contrary  to  the  «;enius  of  American 
institutions  f"  Is  this  "  hostile  to  the  liberal  and 
coiiciliatory  spirit  of  the  day  in  which  we  live?" 
It  is  impossible,  I  will  venture  to  sav,  for  a 
thinking  man,  who  understands  tlie  subject,  seri- 
ously to  make  such  an  assertion.  On  the  cont-a- 
ry,  it  would  be  easy  to  show,  by  an  induction  of 
undeniable  facts,  thai  oeimine  Presbyterianism  lias 
been,  in  all  ages,  friendly  to  free  government,  and 
an  advocate  of  the  rights  of  conscience  ;  and  that 
instead  of  being  hostile  to  the  republican  institu- 
tions of  our  coimtry,  it  is,  under  Providj-Uice,  tiieir 
best  pledge,  and  surest  guardian. 

Accordin2;ly,  who  does  not  know,  that  this  has 
been  one  principal  ground  of  complaint,  on  the 
part  *of  monarchists,  against  Presbyterianism,  ever 
since  that  truly  primitive  and  Apostolick  form  of 
government  was  restored  to  the  Christian  church  ? 
Other  forms  of  ecclesiastical  polity,  indeed,  have 
been  justly    cieemed   congenial  with  aristocraiical 

G 


74 

and  monarchical  ^overnnient.  Long  bcforo  James 
I.  ill  assigning  a  reason  for  wishing  to  put  down 
Presbytery,  and  elevate  Episcopacy,  delivered,  as  a 
royal  maxim, — "  No  liishop,  no  Kiug;''-:-the  same 
mixim  had  been  repeated,  in  substance,  a  thousand 
ti.nes,  as  a  favourite  and  acknowledged  principle,  by 
the  enemies  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  ;  and  from 
that  day  to  this,  the  same  class  of  people  have  been 
in  the  habit  of  repeating  it  a  thousand  times  more, 
as  one  of  the  most  indisputable  of  all  doctrin(>s.  In 
su|)portof  this  doctrine,  an  able  writer  in  the  Quar-» 
teily  Review,  who  may  be  considered  as  one  of  the 
most  substantial  representatives  of  the  friends  of 
Prelacy,  uses  the  following  stmng  language — "  Cer- 
tain it  is,  that  Monarchy  and  Episcopacy  are  much 
more  nearly  'connected  than  v\  riters  of  bad  Jaith, 
or  little  reflection,  have  sought  to  persuade  man- 
kind." On  the  other  hand,  the  natural  alliance  be- 
tween Presbytery  and  free  government,  has  been  al- 
ternately the  theme  of  praise  from  its  friends,  and 
of  reproach  from  its  enemies,  from  time  immemorial. 
On  this  fact,  the  same  prelatical  writer  who  was 
just  quoted,  goes  on  to  make  the  following  remark 
— "  Besides  theinscnsible  but  ^i«/«m/ inclination  to- 
wards democracy,  w  hich  arises  Mm  the  principles  of 
a  popular  church  government,  there  was  another 
cause  why  the  current  should  set  in  that  direction  ; 
it  was  only  under  commonwealths  that  the  Puritans 
saw  their  beloved  discipline  flourish.  The  suffer- 
ance which  it  had  obtained  in  France  .was  won 
from  the  crown,  and  was  exposed  to  continued  and 


75 

imminent  dangpr  from  its  known  enmity."  In  sup- 
port of  the  same  fact,  the  livcsand  writings  of  Jolin 
Calvin  and  John  Knox,  and  liie  nniform  hi>tor3  of 
Pre.sbvterianism,;is exhibited  in  thechtnehes  of  Scot- 
und  and  GfUfva,  of  France  and  of  Holland,  afford 
the  most  overwhelming  testimony.  Buttiiereis  no 
need  of  arraying  this  testimony.  The  enemies  of 
Presbyterianism  have,  ahnost  witli  one  voice,  ac- 
knowledged the  fact.  Clarendon,  and  Hume,  with 
all  the  bitterness  of  their  hostility,  acknowledge  it. 
Indeed,  I  know  of  none,  at  the  present  day  who 
deny  it,  excepting  a  few  men  of  narrow  views  and 
sinister  purpose,  whose  zeal  outstrips  their  know- 
ledge, and  who  endeavour  to  confine  their  o.vu 
vision  and  that  ('f  the  j)ul)bck  to  a  minute  point 
or  two  of  reseml)lance,  instead  of  littiu";  them  to 
great  and  general  principles.  To  this  class,  how- 
ever, candour  constrains  me  to  add,  1  have  not  the 
remotest  suspicion  that  Mr.  D.  belongs. 

If  we  compare  Presbyterianism  with  the  hidepen- 
dent  form  of  church  government,  its  greatly  supe- 
rior adaptation  to  secure,  and  maintain  the  rights 
of  the  people,  will  be  most  manifest.  In  all  govern- 
ments conducted  by  men,  even  by  good  men,  wrong 
may  be  done  ;  from  ignorance  ;  from  misapprehen- 
sion; from  prejudice;  or  from  passion.  It  is  quite 
conceivable — would  it  were  only  conceivable — that 
this,  wrong  may  find"  its  way  into  the  church  of 
Christ.  An  excellent  church  member,  in  a  moment 
of  popular  excitement,  maybe,  without  just  cause. 


76 

condemned  and  excommunicated.  Now,  in  an  In- 
dependent church,  wiiere  is  the  remeo)-  of  such  an 
oppressed  memlVr?  He  ha^  none.  There  is  no  tri- 
bunal to  which  he  can  appeal*  for  relief.  The  sen- 
tence is  final.  He  must  sit  down  under  the  wrong; 
and  may  be  held  under  it  as  long  as  he  lives.  Cases 
of  this  kind  have  actually  occurred,  not  once  or 
t^^ice,  but  jmany  times,  in  Great  Britain^  as  well  as 
in  our  own  Country. 

But  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  there  is  a  reme- 
dy in  all  cases  of  this  kind,  as  complete  as  the  im- 
perfect state  of  human  nature  admits.     All  persons 
considering  themselves  as   aggrie\ed  by  any  act  of 
discipline,   have  the  right  to    appeal  to  a  higher  ju- 
dicatory, in  which  those  who  had  no  concern  in  the 
origin  of  the  proceedings,   are  brought   to   review 
them,   and  to  annul  or  confirm  them   as  they  see 
cause.     And   finally,   the  complainant    may  ap})eal 
to  the  whole  church,  in  its  highest  assembly,  where 
he  will   have  every  pledge'  that  the  nature  of  the 
case  admits,  of  an  enlightened  and  impartial  review 
of  his  case,  and  of  the  redress  of  every  real  griev- 
ance.   And,  accordingly,  many  cases  arise,  in  which 
sentences  of  inferiour  judicatories,  are  reversed,  al- 
most unanimously,  by  the  highest.     The  same   re- 
medy is  attainable,  as  it  ought  to  be,  when  congre- 
gations oppress  and  injure  ministers,  or  when  min- 
isters brow-beat  and  injure  congregations.     On  the 
plan  of  Independency,  there  is,  in  either  of  these 
cases,  no  remedy  ;    that  is,  their  system  provides 


77 

none;  unless,  indeed,  it  be  that  terrible  one,  com- 
ni'-nly  denominated  '"  cbib-law,"  wliich  lias  been 
sometimes  resorted  to,  but  which  is  worse  than  the 
disease  ;  and  which  no  true  friend  of  the  church  or 
of  human  na.nrc,  who  has  once  witnessed  its  exhi- 
bition, will  ever  wish  to  see  brought  into  use  a  se- 
cond time. 

It  may,  indeed,  appear  to  some  that  there  is  an 
ample  remedy  in  those  special  Councils,  of  which 
our  Independent  brethren  s[)eak  so  much,  as  the 
grand  means  of  settling  ail  difficulties  amon^  them- 
selves. This  remedy,  iiowever,  is  more  imaginary 
than  real.  A  council,  in  a  ijiven  case  of  controver- 
sy, may  be  called  or  not,  just  as  the  parties  please. 
*  Either  paity  may  be  perverse  or  obstinate,  and  re- 
fuse to  unite  in  calling  it.  If  it  do  meet,  it  has  no 
power  but  to  ''give  advice;"  and  when  given,  the 
parties  may  take  it. or  not,  just  as  they  please.  But 
this  is  not  the  worst.  Each  party  may  call  a  sepa- 
rate Council.  Comicil  may  be  arrayed  ajjainst 
Council.  Nay,  two  or  three  Councils,  called  by 
different  parties,  may  be  sitting,  and  have  been  ac- 
tually known  to  be  sitting,  at  the  same  time,  within 
the  bounds  of  the  same  Independent  congregation, 
— deliberating  on  the  same  matter  of  controversy, — 
and  all  coming  to  opposite  results  ;  so  that  the  ad- 
vice of  no  two  of  then)  could  possibly  be,  thro"uo"h- 
ont,  adopted.  And,  in  the  mean  time,  the  peace, 
and  comfort,  and  eveji  rights  of  the  people  were 


bleeding  at  every  pore.  But  there- was  no  remedy.* 
This  can  never  happen  in  the  Presbyterian  church. 
For  every  controversy  in  our  body,  there  is  an  ap- 
propriate tribunal ;  and  there  is  but  one  tkibumal. 
One,  too,  which  all  know,  and  all  acknowledge  ;  in 
which  every  man,  whether  a  minister  or  private 
christian,  may  be  impartially  judged  by  his  peers; 
whose  judgment  can  never  be  reversed  but  by  a 
higher  judicatory;  and  thus,  in  almost  all  cases, 
within  the  compass  of  a  single  year,  ultimate  justice 
may  be  obtainel,  and  controversy  terminated.  I 
ask,  then,  under  which  of  these  forms  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal administration,  are  the  substantial  rights,  [)oih 
of  people  and  of  ministers,  most  likely  to  be  secure? 
It  is  impossible,  I  should  think,  for  any  impartial 
man  to  hesitate  a  moment  about  tiie  proper  answer.* 

VI.  When  you  ask  me,  "  Whether  my  doctrine  of 
the  importance  and  necessity  of  Creeds,  is  really 
friendly  to  the  circulation  of  the  Bible,  without  note 
or  comment?"  I  confess  I  am  not  a  little  surprized. 

*  In  the  congregational  churches  of  Connecticut,  there  is  a  reme- 
dy, in  cases  of  this  kind,  which  is  found  in  the  body  called  the 
"  Consociation  ;"  and  which  is,  in  fact,  as  far  as  it  goes,  the  sub- 
stance of  Presbyttrianism.  That  body,  according  to  a  system 
adopted  more  than  a  century  ago,  is  vested  with  the  power  of  giv- 
ing, in  all  ordinary  cises  of  controversy,  judicial  and  authoritative 
decisions.  This,  however,  is  a  perf<?ct  anomaly  in  the  Independent 
system.  It  is  presbytery  under  another  name.  And  the  greater 
part  of  the  other  clTurches  of  JVew- England  are  strangers  to  its  be- 
nefits. But  the  benefits  of  the  svst'em  in  Conneclicut,  have  been  mor? 
numerous  and  rich  than  could  easily  be  described. 


79 

How  it  should  ever  have  occiiirpfl  to  any  one  that 
there  was  the  siuaHest  inconsistency  heiween  this 
doctrine,  and  the  most  enlarged  and  liberal  opera- 
tions of  Bible  Socieiies  in  circulatino;  tiie  Scrip- 
tures, I  can  hardly  ima{i;ine.  It  would  be  just  as 
rational,  and,  indeed,  is  precisely  the  same  kind  of 
reasoning,  to  allej^e,  that  preaching  the  Gospel.,  cate- 
chizing and  instructing  children,  and,  in  short,  every 
kindof  religious  instruction,  exceptinjs;  simply  read- 
ing the  Bible, — ought  to  be  abandoned  by  ihe  friends 
of  Bible  Societies.  An  objection  which  would 
lead  to  such  cunseijuences,  is  surely  irivolous  and 
absurd. 

It  is  said;  indeed,  continually,  bv  those  who  are 
either  strangely  ignorant,  or  prejudiced,  that  the 
frif  nds  of  Bible  Societies  avow  and  act  upon  the 
principle,  that  it  is,  m  itself  considered,  the  best,  and, 
ijideed,  the  onli/  proper  methcd  of  distributing  the 
Scriptures,  to  send  them  "  without  note  or  com- 
ment." This  statement,  by  whomsoever  made,  is  a 
gross  misrepresentation.  No  such  principle  is  avow- 
ed ;  iio  such  sentiment  entertained,  so  far  as  I  know, 
by  any  one.  If  every  Bible  that  is  distributed, 
could  l)e" accompanied  with  an  enlightened,  perfect- 
ly orthodox,  and  jjidicious  commentary,  no  doubt,  it 
would  be  better,  in  order  to  correct  the  deplorable 
carelessness,  and  to  remedy  the  almost  incredible" ig- 
norance, with  which  many  read  the  Scriptures.  This 
would  he,  in  a  measure,  supplying  the  place  of  the 
living  Teacher,  whom  it  has  always  been  the  plan 


80 


and  the  command  of  the  p-eat  Head  of  the  chnrrh 
to  send  with  the  written  Word.  But,  divkh>d  as 
the  christian  world  is  into  so  many  different  denomi- 
nations, where  shall  we  find  a  commentary  to  send 
with  the  Bible,  which  will  be  ei|nally  acceptable  to 
all  sects  and  parties  ?  It  cannot  be  done.  The  mo- 
ment any  thing  of  this  kind  shonld  be  proposed,  it 
would  be  a  signal  for  discord  in  the  most  harmoni- 
ous Bible  Society  in  existence,  and  eventually  for 
disbanding  it.  The  only  question,  in  reference  to 
the  thousands  of  Bible  Societies  with  which  Christ- 
endom is  filled,  is,  whether  the  Bible  shall  be  dis- 
tributed, "  without  note  or  comment,"  or  not  at 
ALL,  For  there  is  no  doubt  that  millions  of  copies 
have  been  sent,  and  are  sending  in  this  form,  which 
would  never  have  been  sent  in  any  other.  For  my 
part,  however  others  may  answer  this  question,  I  can- 
not hesitate  a  moment  to  say — Let  the  simple,  pure 
Hible  be  translated  into  all  languages,  and  sent  to 
every  habitation  and  every  mdividual  under  heaven! 
Happilv,  in  the  distribution  of  this  precious  Book, 
all  denominations  of  professing  christians  can  fully 
CO  operate,  without  the  compromise  of  a  single  prin- 
ciple. Exertions  to  multiply  and  send  forth  its  co- 
pies, may  go  on  to  increase,  until  they  shall  occupy 
every  hand  in  Christendom  ;  ar.d  that  without  neces- 
sarily interfering,  in  the  smallest  degree,  with  the 
exertions  of  any  and  every  particular  church  to 
spread  the  knou  ledge  of  its  own  doctrines  and  order 
as  extensively  as  possible.  In  the  mean  time,  the 
KiBLE  ALONE  Is  sufficient,  1  have  no  doubt,  and  has 


81 

actually  been  found  sufficient,  in  many  thousands  of 
cases,  when  accoinijanied  by  that  Sjjirit  who  inspir- 
ed, it  to  make  men  "  wise  unto  salvation."  I  am  so 
far  from  l)elievii»fi,  that  it  is  necessary  for  him  who 
is  engaged  in  studying  the  Bible,  to  have  Trudition, 
or  the  Fathers,  or  x\w  e\|)lanati()ns  of  the  Church, 
or  the  framers  of  Creeds  and  Confessions,  al  his  el- 
bow, to  enable  him  to  understand  it ;  that  I  am  per- 
suaded, without  ihe  shadow  -of  a  doubt,  that  any 
plain,  honest  mrUi,  who  searclies  the  Scriptures  with 
a  sincere  desire  to  know  the  truth,  will  be  at  no  loss 
to  find  in  them  the  way  of  salvation. 

Nor  can  I  conceive  that  any  thing  but  the  blindest 
prejudice  can  suggest  an  inconsistt^ncy  between  this 
opinion,  and  at  the  same  time  believing,  that  sound 
preaching,  good  commentaries,  well  composed  cate- 
chisms, orthodox  creeds  and  confessions,  and  all 
truly  pious  books,  which  have  for  their  o[)ject  to  ex- 
plain and  enforce  Bible  truth,  are  not  only  lawful, 
but  inestimably  useful.  If  I  coidd  sent  to  the  poor 
Hindoo,  or  [lottentot,  or  Tartar,  a  Bible,  and  with  it 
a  piotis,  faithlul  minister,  to  explain  it,  and  to  endea- 
vour to  rouse  his  attention,  and  direct  his  inquiries 
in  perusing  it,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  would 
be  the  best  thing  I  could  do  for  him.  If  1  could 
not  send  the  liviiig  teacher  with  the  inspired  word, 
the  next  best  accompaniment  of  it  would  certainly 
be,  a  sound,  judicious,  writtcMi  exposition.  But  if  I 
have  it  not  in  my  power  to  send  him  either  the  liv- 
ing teacher,  or  the  written  exposition,  shall  1  hesitate 

H 


82 

to  send  him  that  precious  Volume,  which  alone  may 
be  made  to  him,  as  it  has  been  made  to  mnhiiudes, 
"the  power  of  God  unto  salvation?"  Purely  this 
is  a  question  which  those  who  love  the  Bible,  and 
the  souls  of  men,  cannot  take  long  to  decide.  Ac- 
cordingly I  contemplate  the  multiplication  of  Bil)le 
Societies,  and  the  daily  extension  of  their  plans  and 
success,  with  heart-felt  pleasure.  And  I  have  no 
hesitation  in  avowing  myself  to  be  among  the  num- 
ber of  those  who  anticipate,  from  the  distribution 
of  the  Bii)le,  "  without  note  or  comment,"  the 
mightiest  effects.  That  holy  Book,  if  I  mistake 
not,  under  the  blessing  of  Him  who  gave  it,  is  to  be 
the  means  of  regenerating  the  world  ;  of  raising  the 
intellectual  and  moral  character  of  man  ;  of  plant- 
ing on  the  most  barbarous  and  inhospitable  shores 
the  seeds  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  ;  of  trans- 
forming the  hearts  and  lives  of  millions  ;  and  of  pre- 
paring our  globe  for  the  universal  reign  of  righteous- 
ness and  peace. 

In  all  this,  I  am  not  conscious  of  holdinor  or  ut- 
tering  a  sentiment  in  the  least  degree  hostile  to  my 
doctrine  concerning  Creeds.  If  I  were,  indeed, 
more  anxious  to  make  men  Presbyterians  than  to 
make  them  Christians ;  or,  if  I  supposed  that  no 
one  could  be  a  real  christian  without  being  a  Pres- 
byterian, I  miifht,  no  doubt,  feel  and  decide  differ- 
ently. But  as,  I  trust,  1  can  utterly  disclaim  both 
with  sincerity,  it  is  my  earnest  desire  to  send  the 
Bible  to  every  human  being,  and  to  leave  the  result 


8^ 


to  Him  who  "has  the-  hearts  of  all  flesh  in  his 
hands."  If  that  result  should  prove  i'riendl)'  to  the 
saving  conversion  of  thousands,  but,  at  the  same 
time,  unfavourable  to  the  growth  of  mv  own  ciiureh, 
much  as  I  love  her,   I  should  say,  I  hope   from  the 

heart,  Be  it  so  ! 1  h^ve,  indeed,  no  apprehension 

of  such  a  result.  There  is  no  christian  denomina- 
tion in  the  world  that  has  so  little  reason  as  ours, 
to  be  afraid  of  the  consequences  of  a  general  study 
of  the  Bible,  "  without  note  or  comment."  But 
if  it  were  otherwise,  I  should  still  say.  Be  it  so ! 
Let  the  Body  of  Christ  increase,  even  if  Pn*sbyte- 
rianism  decrease!  When  ^hose  who  have  happily 
profited  by  reading  the  Bible,  come  to  unite  them- 
selves with  the  church  of  Christ;  or,  if  it  occur 
among  the  heathen,  to  be  formed  into  a  church; 
the  question  will  arise,  and  to  every  conscientious 
man,  a  very  serious  and  interesting  question  it  is — 
with  what  particular  denomination  of  (-hristiatis  they 
sh  II  connect  themselves?  Then  will  naturally  occur 
the  question  concerning  Creeds,  Confessions,  and 
Forms  of  Church  order,  the  utility  and  im[)ortance  of 
which,  in  their  proper  place,  it  is  hardly  necessary 
to  say,  I  should  be  the  last  man  in  the  world  to  deny. 

Vn.  From  a  clause  of  dubious  import,  toward  the 
close  of  your  letter,  I  should  conjecture,  my  dear 
Sir,  that  you  were  under  an  erroneous  impression 
with  regard  to  one  point.  You  seem  to  suppose  that 
s»d)scription  to  our  Confession  of  Faith  is  required 
of  all  the  private  members,  as  well  as  the  oflicers, 


84. 

of  our  church.  This  is  by- no  means  the  -^ase,  1 
know  of  no  instance  in  which  any  thing;  of  this  kind 
has  b(^en  attempted.  At  any  rate,  if  done  at  all, 
it  is  done  on  private  responsibility,  not  being  at  all 
prescribed  in  the  constitution  of  the  Church.  We 
require  the  subscription  in  question  only  of  those 
who  are  candiuatks  fok  okkick  ;  who  are  to  be 
teachers^  rulers,  and  guides  in  the  house  o!  God  ; 
"  watchmen  on  the  house  \y{  Zion  ;"  "  ensamples  to 
the  flock."  Now  that  special  measures  ought  to  be 
taken  to  put  to  the  test  their  "soundness  in  the 
faith,"  and  their  "  ajttness  to  teach,"  as  well  as  their 
piety  and  prudence,  is  what  1  presume  no  one  who 
has  ever  read  the  New- Testament,  will  deny.  All 
chinch  members,  indeed,  ought  to  be  orthodox  as 
well  as  pious;  and  appropriate  measures  ought 
certainly  to  be  taken,  l)y  pastors  and  riders,  in  the 
church,  to  promote  this  object.  But  the  importance 
of  securing  these  qualifif-ations  in  the  pastors  and  ru- 
lers themselves,  vvho  are  to  watch  over  all,  to  instruct 
all,  to  preside  in  the  exrrcise  of  discipline,  and  to 
regulate  and  govern  all ; — is  so  evident,  that  no 
reasoning  or  illustration  can  render  it  more  clear. 

From  the  high  praise  which  Mr.  D.  so  frequently 
bestows  on  the  Congregational  form  of  church  gov- 
ernment, as,  in  his  opinion,  much  more  nearly  con- 
formed to  the  Scriptural  model  than  the  Presbyter- 
ian ;  you  would  naturally  suppose  that  none  of  the 
Congregational  churches  of  New  England  were  in 
the  habit  of  requiring  their  candidates  for  the  min- 


85 

istry  to  give  tlinir  assent  to  any  Confession  of 
Faiih.  'IMie  lact,  however,  is  otherwise.  A  hifjhly 
respectable  minister  ot  Connecticut^  makes  ti'e  fol- 
io Miig  statement.  "  In  this  Association,  before  a 
candid.ite  is  Ucdised  to  preach  the  Gospel,  he  is 
carelully  examined  on  the  principal  doctrines  which 
are  contained  in  the  Savoy  Confession  of  Faith,  and 
in  the  Catechistns  composed  by  the  Assembly  of 
Divines  at  IVistminiHttr;  and  when  hv  \s  ordainrd, 
he  is  ex()res>l\  recpiired  to  assent  to  the  "  Say-brook 
Platform,"  w  hicli  ct)niains  the  Savoy  Confession,  the 
Heads  of  Agreement  assented  to  by  the  Presbyteri- 
an and  Coniiregational  ministers  of  England,  and  a 
few  general  articles  for  the  administration  of  church 
discipline.  This,  I  believe  is  the  practise  of  all  the 
Associations  in  Connecticut,  except  the  one  in 
Windham  Coimry,  which  never  adopted  the  "  Say- 
hook  Platform." 

It  may  not  be  improper  to  state,  in  passing;,  that 
the  Savoy  Confession,  repeatedly  s|)oken  of  in  this 
statement,  is,  neither  more  imr  less  than  an  exact 
copy  of  the  fVcstminstfr  Confession  of  Faith  at 
large,  with  a  few  verbal  alterations  to  adapt  it  to  In- 
dependency. It  was  adopted,  by  the  Independents, 
at  Savoy,  in  England,  and  [)refaced,  at  the  time  of 
its  ado[)tion,  by  the  following  remarkable  diu-lara- 
tion  : — a  declaration  vvhich,  if  I  were  at  Mr".  D's 
elbow,  little  as  he  may  be  disposed  to  receive  my  ad- 
vice, I  should  most  earnestly  urge  him  to  peruse 
again  and   again "Hitherto,"   say  this  conven- 


«6 

tion  of  pious  and  enlightened  Independents — "  Hi- 
therto there  have  been  no  assorjations  of  our 
churches,  no  meetings  of  our  ministers  to  promote 
the  common  interest.  Our  churches  are  like 
so  many  ships  launched  singly,  and  sailing  a()art 
and  ah)ne,  in  the  vast  ocean  in  these  tumultnous 
times,  exposed  to  every  wind  of  doctrine  ;  under  no 
other  conduct  than  the  Word  and  Spirit,  and  our 
particular  Elders  and  j)rincipal  brethren,  without 
associations  ;imong  ourselves,  or  so  much  as  hold- 
ing OUT  A  COMMON  LIGHT  TO  OTHKK3,  WHEKEBY 
THEY    MAY    KNOW    WHEKE    WE    AKE." But,    tO 

return  to  the  practise  of  our   Congregational  breth- 
ren. 

While  it  is  confidently  believed. that  there  are 
some  other  Congregational  churches  in  New  Eng- 
land^ besides  those  of  Connecticut^  who  require 
their  candidates  for  the  ministry  to  adopt  a  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  and  who  have,  under  God,  by  this 
means,  remained  comparatively  free  from  the  radical 
errors  around  them  ;  such  as  those  of  Vermont^  and 
New  Hampshire:  it  is  well  known  that  there  are  many 
others,  who  reject  every  thing  like  Confessions,  and 
boast  that  they  take  the  the  Bible,  simply,  as  their 
rule.  And  what  is  the  state  of  orthodoxy  among 
them?  Are  they  more  pure  and  scriptural  in  their 
sentiments  than  any  of  their  neighbours  ?  This  must, 
of  course,  be  the  case,  according  to  i\Jr.  D's  doc- 
trine. But  is  it  so  in  fact  ?  Ah!  it  is  death  to  his 
cause  to  take  a  look  into  this  part  of  the  ecclesias- 


87 


tical  statisticks  of  our  country  !  The  only  churches, 
or  aliuost  ilie  only  churches,  in  the  United  States, 
in  condiictingthe  affairs  of  which,  all  Creeds  are  re- 
jected, are  so  far  from  hein^;  uniformly  pure  in  doc- 
trine, that  they  emhrace  all  manner  ol  heresy,  from 
Semi-|jelaji;ianism  to  Socinianism.  Almost  the 
only  thing  that  you  are  sure  of  not  finding  among 
them  is  a  shred  of  ortho'loxy.  They  are  scarcely 
agreed  in  anyone  point,  hut  the  innocence  of  error, 
and  in  proscribing  and  hating  u  hat  we  deem  the 
truiri !  A  goodly  recommendation,  truly,  of  the  "  no- 
creed"  si'heme,  as  the  promised  means  of,  at  once, 
purifying  and  uniting  the  uorld  ! 

You  ought  to  know,  too,  that  a  great  majority  of 
the  orthodox  Congregntiona!  churches,  throughout 
New-  England,  and  especially  those  of  Connecticut, 
GO  FURTHEii  THAN  WE  po,  aud  require  all  persons 
who  join  their  churches,  as  private  members,  to  adopt 
a  Confession  of  Faith.  This  Confession  is  solemn- 
ly formed  by  the  Church  ;  regularly  recorded,  as  the 
creed  agreeably  to  which  they  have  covenanted 
to  walk;  formally  read  to  the  candidate  at  the 
time  of  his  admission ;  and  assented  to  by  him 
before  he  can  take  his  place  as  a  member.  It  con- 
sists, indeed,  commonly  of  a  small  number  of  arti- 
cles, usually  not  more  than  ten  or  twelve  of  the 
leading  doctrines  of  the  Gospel ;  and  is  expressed 
in  a  few  words.  Still  it  is  a  confession — a  written 
confession — and  expressed  in  human  language  ;  and 
involves  the  principle,  in  all  its  extent,   for  which  I 


88 

am  contending.  A  few  of  our  churches  imitate 
our  New-England  brethren  in  this  practise.  This 
is  confined,  however,  I  think,  to  those  churches, 
who  were  either  originally  constituted,  for  the  most 
part,  by  emigrants  from  New- England,  or  have 
subsequently  become  composed  of  a  majority  of 
such  members. 

On  some  other  points  brought  into  .view  in  your 
letter,  you  must  excuse  me  if  I  forbear  to  speak.  I 
know  not  that  the  discussion  of  them,  even  in  the 
best  manner,  would  minister  to  the  great  interests  of 
"  brotherly  kindness  and  charity."  At  any  rate,  if 
they  be  touched  at  all,  they  must  be  treated  at  con- 
siderable length  ;  and  for  this,  pnrdon  me  for  again 
saying,  1  have  not,  at  present,  either  time  or  inclina- 
tion. 

And  now,  my  dear  Sir,  it  is  time  to  bring  this 
long  letter  to  a  close.  As  you  suggested  to  me  the 
alternative  of  either  addressing  you  in  private,  or 
answering  your  conimunication  through  the  medium 
of  the  press ;  1  chose,  for  various  reasons,  the  latter. 
Among  the  reasons  which  thus  influenced  my  mind 
one  is,  that,  although  the  subject  of  these  pages  may 
seem,  at  first  view,  to  be  one  in  which  the  parties 
immediitely  imj)licated  can  alone  have  any  interest, 
it  is  really  far.  otherv\ise.  It  is,  in  many  respects, 
a  common  con(  ern  of  all  the  friends  of  religion.  It 
is  a  subject  deeply  interesting  to  every  individual 
Avho  loves  the  church  of  God  ;    to  every  ecclesiasti- 


89 

cal  body  who  prize  good  order,  and  christian  edifi- 
cation. In  every  chnrch,  diversity  of  views,  and 
temporary  conflicts,  even  among  o;ood  men,  will  oc- 
casionally occur.  "It  is  impossible  but  that  offen- 
ces will  come."  When  they  do  arise,  every  reflect- 
ing man,  one  would  think,  must  see  the  importance 
of  treating  them,  on  both  sides,  with  a  spirit  of  mo- 
deration, forb(  arance  and  charity  ;  and,  at  the  same 
time,  of  adhering  to  the  established  rules  by  which 
the  body  in  question  has  agreed  to  be  governed.  In 
the  chnrch,  as  well  as  in  the  state,  government  ought 
to  be  the  reign  of  law,  not  of  iwni.  I  am  aware 
that  when  almost  any  individual  becomes  a  delin- 
quent wilh  regard  to  ecclesiastical  order,  he  seldom 
fails,  in  the  first  stages  of  excitement,  to  find  in  a 
large  mass  of  the  community,  a  prompt  advocate, 
and,  for  a  while,  to  \w  almost  canonized  as  a  mar- 
tyr. That  noble  sentiment  which  dispos<'S  men, 
anteriour  to  all  examination,  to  fly  to  the  n^licf  of' 
those  who  are  involved  in  difiicuhy,  must  and  u  ill 
have  its  course.  Y't,  nn'thinks,  it  is  rather  asking 
too  nnich  to  demand,  that  the  church,  in  order  to 
gratify  the  feelinjjs  of  an  individual,  should  abandon 
that  order  which  she  has  published  to  the  world,  and 
virtually  pledijed  herself  to  maintain;  that  she 
should  deliberately  allow  her  laws  and  authority  to 
be  trampled  under  feet  ;  and,  in  a  word,  for  the  sake 
of  avoiding  the  unjust  impination  of  |)ersecnting /<//«, 
to  allow  him  really  to  persecute  and  injure  herself 
without  raisino;  a  hand  to  defend  what  she  verily  be- 
lieves to  be  the  cause  of  Christ. 

I 


90 

But  let  us  be  patient.  The  issue  of  things,  if  I 
mistake  not,  will  make  very  instructive  disclos- 
ures. The  present  paroxism  of  feeling  and  of  cla- 
mour, will  soon  pass  away.  Prejudice  and  passion 
must  ultimately  yield  to  more  sober  sentiments  :  aud 
when  this  shall  be  the  case,  the  foregoing  principles 
will,  I  am  confident,  begin  to  be  ajjpr^ciated.  The 
religious  publick  of  this  happy  Country  is  too  enlight- 
ened to  be,  for  any  lenii;th  of  time,  cajoled  by  flat- 
tering declamation  ;  too  v^  ell  informed  of  its  own 
unalienable  rights,  to  be  alarmed  by  the  pictures  of 
imaginary  danger,  which  feverish  minds  create  and 
exhibit,  in  the  fulness  of  their  honest  delirium.  Nor 
do  I  apprehend  that  this  deliriiun  will  last  long, 
even  in  those  who  are  the  subjects  of  its  most 
threatening  exacerbations.  If  they  have  as  much  both 
of  principle  and  of  intellect,  as,  amidst  all  their  aber- 
rations, I  take  them  to  have  ;  if  Mr.  Duncan  and 
his  coadjutors  shoidd  ever  form  an  ecclesiastical 
community  of  their  own,  they  will  soon  find  the 
need  of  law  and  regulation  for  the  maintenance  of 
order.  Some  subscription,  ^n  acknowledgment  of 
certain  principles,  on  the  part  of  those  who  are  to 
be  received  as  teachers  and  rulers,  will  be  found 
necessary.  If  an  attempt  be  made  to  do  without 
►  any  thing  of  this  kind,  their  churches  will  in  a  lit- 
tle time,  either  degenerate  into  bodies  of  latitudina- 
rians  and  hereticks  ;  which  will  by  no  means  accord 
with  the  views  of  those  Gentlemen  ;  or  be  con- 
strained by  dear  bought  experience  to  retrace  the 
steps  which  they  are  now  taking.     Then,  if  not  be- 


91 

fore,  tfipy  will  disrovpr  the  total  want  of  prqctir.al 
wisdom  wliicii  mirks  their  present  proceeilini^s. 
Then,  if  not  hefore,  t  ley  will  l)e  hroiii^ht  to  see  and 
lament  ihat  they  have  heen  fijihlins;  equally  against 
the  purity  and  the  comfort  of  the  Church.  CJod 
grant  that  this  discovery  miy  he  m  ide,  and  their 
steps  retraced,  with  as  lew  and  as  small  wounds  as 
possible  to  their  own  |jeace  ;  and  with  as  little  inju- 
ry as  possible  to  that  great  cause  of  the  Ri^deemer's 
truth  and  glory  which  we  all  profess  to  love! 

I   am,  Sir, 

very  respectfidly, 
Yonr  friend  and  obedient  servant, 

SAMUEL   MILLER. 

Princei.  i,  JV*.  J.  j* 
Jan.  25,   1826.  \ 


.^>:r'j. 


